A 


I\    v^ 


v\- 


# 

(^ 

1 

." 

Ic 

£• 

'^ 

1 

- 

^„^ 

1^ 

^          *-i 

Q. 

1 

xj 

•&    » 

"o 

to 

? 

^     g 

c 

C           O 

(30 

*S5            E^ 

< 

. 

m           g 

1 

\ 

g 

E 

1 

«     -1       1 

^               M 

a 

*.^   . 

S     ^ 

^       rt 

CO 

.§  ^   J 

^       fk 

w: 

i^     =^.    ^       ! 

<<*^ 

2 

! 

^ 

^ 

i 

^» 

-a 

% 

4^ 

ti> 

^ 

^ 

^ 

d: 



^ 


A 

SECOND    INQUIRY, 

INTO 

THE  NATURE  AND  DESIGN 

O    F 

CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 

Intended  as  a  Vindication  and  further  Illujiration,  of 
the  Sentiments  advanced  in  2i  former  Inquiry^  on 
the  fame  fubjed. 


I 


Pastor  of  the  first  Church  in  Chatham. 


HARTFORD: 
I'rinted  by  HUDSON  and  GOODWIN. 

1796, 


A  SECOND  INQUIRY,  &c. 


SECTION    I. 


Introductory  and  Preliminary  ObfervaUons. 


THE  inquiry,  which  refpedls  the  nature  and  de- 
fignof  Baptifm,  is,  without  doubt,  an  inquiry 
of  great  importance  :  and  it  is  one  upon  which  there 
has  been  a  variety  of  opinions  ;  efpecially  as  infants 
are  refpeded.  There  have  been  feveral  publications 
already  on  the  fubjed:.  The  defign  of  the  following 
fedions  is  to  purfue  the  inquiry,  in  its  prefcnt  ftage. 
It  will,  therefore,  be  neceflary  to  premife,  that  I 
have  already  publiftied  an  iaquiry  on  the  fubjed, 
which  was  fuppofed  to  contain  a  fcheme  of  fentimcnts, 
confident  with  itfelf,  and  fupported  by  the  facred 
fcriptures.      The  following  is   a   fummary  of  the 

fcheme  it  contained. That  circurncifion  and  con- 

fequently  baptifm,  comprehending  adult  and  infant, 
are  confidered,  in  the  facred  fcriptures,  as  a  joint  to- 
ken of  the  parenfs  good  coyenant-Ilanding— That 
the  infants  of  believers  are  not  to  be  confidered,  eith- 
er as  being  per/onally  in  covenant,  or  as  having  any 


■perfonal  title  to  its  blefTings — That  the  natural  feed  oi 
Abraham,  as  fuch,  were  not  confidered  as  bemg  per- 
fonally  in  covenant  and  entitled  to  its  bleflings  ;^  con- 
fequently  were  not  the  feed  peculiarly  refpeded  in  the 
covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham  ;  for  the 
promife  "  is  fure  to  all  the  feed'' — That,  on  the  con- 
trarv,  the  feed  refpeded,  in  the  covenant,  was  ^/pi- 
ritual  feed  ;  or  believers,  w  hether  defcendants  from 
Abraham  or  not — That  infant  circumcifion,  there- 
fore, as  the  infant  w^as  refpefted,  could  not  fignify 
any  thing  more,  than  its  dedieation  to  God  ;  which 
dedication  was  abfolutely  neceflary,  to  complete  the 
good  covenant-ftanding  of  the  parent.  Whence  it 
was  inferred,  that  infants  did  not  become  perfonal 
and  dijlin6l  members  of  the  church,  by  being  the 
fubjefts  of  circumcifion  ;  and  do  not  now  become 
fuch,  in  confequence  of  their  baptifm — ^I'hat  the  dif- 
cipline  to  be  exercifed,  which  refpeds  baptized  chil- 
dren muft,  of  confequence,  be  through  the  medium 
of  the  parents — ^That  in  this  view  of  the  ordinance, 
parents  muft  be  holden  by  the  moft  folemn  bonds 
to  be  faithful  in  the  education  of  their  dedicated  chil- 
dren :  and  children  muft  be  fenfible,  of  the  import- 
ance of  their  repenting  and  believing,  as  their  falva- 
tion  muft  depend  on  perfonal  exercifes.  Arguments 
were  offered,  to  fupport  the  various  parts  of  the 
fcheme. 

Since  the  publication  of  the  above  mentioned  in- 
quiry, another  inquiry  on  the  fame  fubjeft  has  been 
laid  before  the  public,  with  a  defign  of  correcting 
miftakes,  contain'-d  in  the  former  ;  and  to  eftablifh  a 
different  fcheme  of  fentiments,  refpedling  the  ordi- 
nance in  queftion.*  But,  after  a  candid  and  ferious 
attention  to  what  is  advanced  in  the  latter  inquiry, 
if  is  believed,  that  the  fcheme  it  contains,  is  founded 
on  miftaken  apprehenfions  of  the  covenant,  which 
God  eftablifhed  with  Abraham  and  other  believers  j 


*  See  Doftor  West's  inquiry  into  the  ground  and  import  of  infant 
baptifm. 


and,  that  the  fcheme  contained  m  the  former  is  ca- 
pable of  a  fcrlptuial  defence. 

T^E  defign  of  the  following  fedions  is,  to  purfue 
the  inquiry,  in  this  ftage  of  it.  Hoping  that  fome 
progrefs  may  be  made,  in  bringing  it  to  a  fatisfaclory 
iffue.*      ''-.-^ 

It -will  be  neceflary,  in  this  place,  to  give  a  fum- 
mary  of  the  fcheme  advanced  in  the  laft  mentioned 
inquiry.  It  is  laid,  that  although  dedication  be  im- 
plied, in  the  circumcifion  and  baptifm  of  infants,  yet 
the  ordinance  has  a  more  important  import,  than 
barely  to  indicate  dedication  ;  and,  that  parents,  who 
dedicate  them,  do  keep  covenant — That  it  alfo  im- 
ports, that  fuch  children  are  peculiarly  refpefted  and 
comprehended  in  the  covenant,  which  God  makes 
with  beheving  parents,  as  the  feed  which  fliall  inherit 
the  promifes. — That,  as  God  promifed  Abraham,  that 
he  would  maintain  a  church  among  his  pofterity, 
fo  there  is  a  transfer  of  the  fame  promife  to  gentile 
believers,  refpefting  their  natural  i'^ed — That  the 
promife  contains  a  fecurity  of  gracious  qualifications, 
to  be  handed  down  from  parent  to  child,  to  the  re- 
motefl  generations.  Hence,  it  is  faid,  that  baptifm  i3 
a  token  and  confirmation,  that  the  children  of  believ- 
ers are  refpecled,  as  the  feed  regarded  in  the  covenant, 
as  well  as  parents.  Yea,  it  is  fuppofed,  that  baptifm 
has  the  fame  import,  as  the  infant:  is  refpedtcd,  as  it 
has  refpecling  an  adult  ;  for  it  is  confidered,  as  an 
objeftion  to   my  inquir*',      that  according     to  the 

*  Doctor  West,  in  hir.  inquiry,  avoided  the  mcntien  of  any 
name,  that  every  thing  perfonal  mijjht  be  kept  out  of  view.  His  ex- 
ample would  have  been  followed  in  this,  had  it  been  pradicable,  and 
the  reader  have  been  under  advantages  to  judge,  v.hether  that  candor 
and  fairnefs  are  ufed,  which  ought  to  attend  all  'ir-quirics  after  truth. 
Neceflity  will  oblige  xnc  to  make  frequent  iffcr.t'nccs  to  the  Doiftor's 
inquiry;  and  where  references  are  made, tp  particular  p?ges,  and  no 
name  is  mentioned,  it  may  be  underftood  to  ft^er  to  the  Dodor's. — 
My  defign  is,  to  purfue  the  inquiry,  keeping  every  thing  perfonal,  as 
farasispoflihle,  out  of  view.  It  is  ardently  wilhed,  that  the  inquiry 
could  be  purfncd,  without  any  appearance  of  a  public  controverfy  ; 
but  it  isfo  circumftanccd,  that  it  isimpofTibleto  avoid  every  appcar- 
'  anceofit.  Yet  it  is  hoped,  that  the  greateft  candor  will  be  excrcifcd  ; 
and,  that  the  feelings  of  no  one  will  be  unnccefiarily  wounded. 


fcheme  contained  in  it,baptifm  "  was  of  an  import  per- 
fedly  different,  when  applied  to  the  child,  from 
that  which  it  was  of,  when  applied  to  the^  parent." 
p.  33.  It  is  acknowledged,  however,  that  it  is  elfe. 
where  faid,  that  no  promifes  are  fealed  to  infants  in 
baptifm  ;  that  "  the  children  of  believers  are  pofleif- 
cd  ©f  no  other  rights  than  the  children  of  unbeliev-- 
crs'*  p.  108  ;  and  herein,  it  is  apprehended,  there  is 
a  continual  inconfiftency  in  the  fcheme.  This  is  a 
fummary  of  the  fcheme  advanced  in  the  laft  menti- 
tion  inquiry. 

But  to  give  a  more  full  view  of  it,  it  may  be  ne- 
ceflary  further  to  obferve,  that  the  promife  in  which 
it  is  fuppofed  the  children  of  believers  are  compre- 
hended, and  which  contains  a  fecurity  of  their  faith 
and  holinefs,  and  intereft  in  the  blelTmgs  of  the  cov- 
enant, is  a  conditional  promife — ^That  the  condition  of 
the  promife  is  parental  faithfulnefs.  It  cannot  be  de- 
termined precifely,  what  degree  of  faithfulnefs  is  re- 
quifitc  ;  vet  it  lies,  fomewhere  between  total  negled 
and  abfolute  perfedion.  But  then,  faithfulijefs  in 
educating  children  is  confidered  as  the  condition  of 
the  promife,  and  the  only  fecurity  of  the  bleffings  of 
the  covenant  to  children. 

Again  ;  it  is  no  where  pretended,  that  God,  in 
the  covenant  he  eftablifhes  with  believers,  refpefting 
their  feed,  in  ^ny  way  fecurcs  the  requifitc  faithful- 
nefs in  parents.  Although  it  is  afferted,  that  in  cafe 
parents  are  faithful,  to  a  certain  degree,  the  holinefs 
and  falvation  of  their  children  will  be  fecured  by  it ; 
yet  it  is  no  where  pretended,  that  God,  by  any  cov- 
enant, hath  fecured  to  parents,  requiftte  iraee  to  ren- 
der them  faithful,  any  more  than  he  hath  fecured  to 
children,  repentance  and  faith,  without  fuch  faithful- 
nefs in  parents.  Doctor  Hopkins,  who  is  quoted 
with  approbation,  exprefsly  fays,  that  although  God 
has,  in  his  gracious  covenant,  fecured  all  that  grace 
to  believing  parents,  which  is  requifitc  to  their  per- 
fevcrance  in  holinefs,  and  fo  to  fecurc  their  own  fal- 


vation,  yet,  "  there  is  no  promlfe  in  this  covenant, 
"  that  if  they  do,  with  a  degree  of  fmcerity,  give  up 
"  their  children  to  God,  and  profefs  all  thofe  exerci« 
"  (es,  and  promife  to  perform  all  that  duty  towards 
"  them,  which  are  implied  in  bringing  them  up  for 
"  God,  that  they  fliall  certainly  do  all  this ;  but  they 
"  may  be  very  deficient  and  unfaithful  in  this  coVe- 
"  nant,  as  it  refpecls  their  children,  and  bring  a  curfg 
"  upon  them,  rather  than  the  bleffings  promifed  in  the 
"  covenant."  *  If  it  be,  indeed,  the  cafe,  that  paren- 
tal faithfulnefs  is  the  condition  of  the  promife,  and, 
that  there  is  no  covenant  fecurity  of  fuch  faithfulnefs, 
it  muft  follow  as  a  confequence,  that  the  covenant 
contains,  no  greater  fecurity,  of  the  holinefs  and  fal- 
vation,  of  the  children  of  believers,  and  fo  of  their 
intcreil  in  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant,  than  is  con- 
tained in  the  general  tender  of  thofe  bleffings,  on  the 
condition  of  perfonal  repentance  and  faith  ;  for  the 
faithfulnefs  of  parents,  as  well  as  the  repentance  and 
faith  of  children,  depends  on  the  unpromifcd  inter- 
pofition  of  divine  grace.  God  may  give  to  parents, 
that  grace  which  is  requifite  to  render  them  faithful, 
and  he  may  give  to  children  that  grace  which  is  re- 
quifite to  their  repentance  and  faith  ;  but  he  has  en- 
gaged neither,  by  any  covenant ; — in  either  cafe,  it 
would  be  equally  an  unpromifed  favour.  It  ap- 
pears, therefore,  that  the  whole  fcheme,  as  it  is  foun- 
ded on  the  idea,  that  the  covenant  contains  fome  fe- 
curity of  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant,  to  the  chil- 
dren of  believers,  is  founded  on  miftake  ;  for  the  fup- 
pofed  condition  of  fuch  bleffings,  is  parental  faithful- 
nefs;  but  of  that  faithfulnefs,  there  is  no  tjreater  fe- 
curity in  the  covenant,  than  there  is  of  faith  to  chil- 
dren, and  to  all  men  under  the  gofpel,  in  the  general 
tender  of  falvation,  on  the  condition  of  faith  and  re- 
pentance. In  the  one  cafe,  the  tender  contains  no  fe- 
curity of  faith.  In  the  other  cafe,  the  covenant  con- 
tains HO  fecurity  of  parental  faithfulnefs.     It  amounts 

"■  Slc  DG(f^or  Hopkins's  Syft^im,  Vol.  c.  p.  346.  o47- 


8 

to  no  more  than  a  gracious  tender  of  bkflings* 

But  it  was  not  defigned,  in  this  place,  to  proceed  any 
further,  than  barely  to  ftate  the  fcheme. 

From  the  reprefentations  which  have  been  given, 
the  difference  between  the  fchemes  held  forth  in  the 
inquiries  is  this  (viz.)  The  former  fuppoles,  that  the 
infants  of  believejs  are  in  no  proper  fenfe  in  cove- 
nant— have  no  title  to  its  bleflings,  nor  any  cove- 
nant fecurity  of  them.  Confequently,  that  they  are 
not  to  be  baptized  with  any  fuch  idea  in  view.  But 
baptifin  is  to  be  adminiftered,  to  denote  the  parents 
full  compliance  with  the  covenant,  by  dedicating  his 
feed  to  God  ;  and  dedication  only  is  fignified  refpect- 
ing  the  child.  § 

The  latter  icheme  fuppofes,  that  the  children  of 
believers  are  fo  comprehended  in  the  covenant,  which 
God  makes  with  believing  parents,  as  that  there  is  a 
fecurity  of  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant  to  them  ;  and 
fo  they  are  to  be  baptized  in  token  of  their  being  the 
feed  refpeded  in  the  promife  who  Ihall  inherit  its 
bleffrngs. 

Having  given  a  particular  view  of  the  prefent 
ilage  and  circumftances  of  the  inquiry,  I  fhall  now 
proceed  to  fee  whether  the  fcheme  of  baptifm  advan- 
ced in   my  former  inquiry  is  not  fupported  by  the 

^  The  word  dedication,  as  ufcd  in  this  and  my  former  inquiry,  in- 
volves la  it,  obligations  on  parents  to  exert  all  their  abilities,  to  train 
up  children  for  the  fervice  of  God.  Yet,  it  is  fuppofcd,  p.  88.  that 
if  fuch  obligations  were  implied  in  the  dedication  of  children,  that 
parents  would  feel  as  if  they  were  relieved  by  the  fcheme,  and  would 
not  have  that  fenfe  of  obligation,  which  accompanies  a  belief  of  the 
doftrine,  that  the  falvalion  of  their  children  is  abfolutely  connedled, 
with  their  faithful  exertions.  *'  Where  nothing  i?  depending,  we  feci 
no  obligation"  &c.  But,  is  it  the  cafe  that  chriftians  are  chiefly  in- 
fluenced by  felfilh  and  intercftcd  confideratiisns  ?  And,  do  chrifiians 
conclude,  that  if  their  own  falvation  or  the  falvation  of  their  children 
be  not  abfoluttly  fecured  by  any  ftippofcd  exertions,  that  they  are 
under  no  obligations  to  exert  themfi-lvcs  ?  Befides,  although  dedica« 
tion  only  be  fiRnified  in  baptifm,  may  not  faithful  parental  exertions 
be  greatly  fubfervient  to  th'  falvation  of  children  ;  and  an  inftitutcd 
means  ot  fo  important  an  event  ?  Parents  may  have  no  reafon  to  ex- 
ped  the  falvation  of  their  children  if  they  are  negligent ;  and  at  the 
fame  time  have  no  abfylute  promift  of  their  falvation  if  they  arc  faith- 
ful. 


facred  fcriplures ;  and,  v/hether  the  latter  fcheme  is 
jiot  founded  in  mifapprehenfion  and  miflake. 

Before  this  feftion  is  clofed,  it  may  be  proper  to 
make  a  few  preliminary  obfervations. 

'  I.  The  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham 
was,  fubftantially,  the  covenant  of  grace.  This,  it  is 
apprehended,  was  fufficiently  proved  in  my  formep  in- 
quiry. It  has  not,  in  the  progrefs  of  the  inquiry,  been 
called  in  queftion. 

2.  The  decifion  of  the  inquiry,'refpei5ling  the  na- 
ture and  defign  of  infant  baptifm,  depends,  on  the 
meaning  of  the  tevm/eeci,  in  the  covenant  which  God 
made  with  Abraham. 

It  is  faid  "  If  the  promife  implied  ncthiug  more, 
than  that  the  Lord  would  be  a.  God  to  all  ivbo  Jhould 
believe,  in  every  age  and  nation,  and  that  all  fuch 
Ihould  be  reckoned  to  Abraham  as  his  feed,  it  will, 
then  be  manifeft ,  that  infant  circuracifion  was  a  feal 
of  no  promife  of  bleflings  on  the  child,*'  p.  119.  The 
meaning  of  the  term  feed  then,  will  fettle  the  inquiry 
refpeding  the  import  of  infant  baptifm.  If  it  can  be 
made  evident,  that  the  feed  comprehended  believers 
only,  it  is  granted  that  the  idea  advanced  in  my  in- 
quiry is  fupported.  And  if  it  be  true,  as  is  conced- 
ed, that "  Abraham  was  taught,  that  his  children  mufl 
be  the  childern  of  promife — oi faith  ;  in  order  to  be 
that  feed  who  were  to  heir  the  bleffings  promifed  to 
Abraham^'  p.  24 ; — and  if  it  be  "  Unquellionably 
true,  that  the  proraifes  in  their  true  fpirit,  implied  that 
none  fhould  be  heirs  of  eternal  good,  but  through 
Chrift,  and  by  virtue  of  union  to  him,**  as  is  aflerted 
p.  25.  I  fay,  thefe  conceffions  being  made,  one  would 
conclude,  that  none  but  believers  were  comprehend- 
ed in  the  term  feed.  But  fuch  a  conclufion,  it  is  faid 
does  not  follow ;  "  for  fuch  a  general  conftru(5lion  of 
the  promife  might  leave  it  uncertain,  whether  there 
ever  would  be  any  believers,"  p.  25.  In  anfwer,  it 
may  be  obferved,  that  if,  the  fecurity  of  a  fucceflion  of 
believers  depended  on  God's  covenant  traiifa<flions 
B 


1€> 

with  Abraham,  the  conclufion  is  juft,  but  it  fhould  be 
remembered,  that  the  covenant  of  redemption  fecures 
the  exiilence  of  believers,  or  of  a  church — that  Chrift 
fhall  "  fee  of  his  feed,''  the  travel  of  his  foul  and  be 

fatisfied. But,  all  which  is  infifted  on  in  this  place 

is,  that  by  determining  the  meaning  of  the  termy?^^ 
the  import  and  meaning  of  infant  baptifm  may  be  de- 
termxined. 

3.  By  the  feed,  mentioned  in  the  promife  which 
God  made  to  i\.braham  is  meant  thofe,  who  have 
a/ure  title  to  the  blefiings  contained  in  the  promife. 

The  term  feed  points  out  thofe,  who  have  a  title 
to  the  promifes.  The  apoflle  Paul  tcaehes  us  to  con- 
clude, that  the  promife  is  ^''fure  to  all  the  feed.''' 
Rom.  ii.  16.  Therefore,  if  it  were  the  cafe,  that  the 
natural  feed  of  Abraham,  fimply  as  fuch,  had  a  fure 
title  to  the  blefiings  of  the  covenant,  they  were  refpec- 
ted  as  the  feed,  but  not  otherwife.  To  fay  they  were 
the  feed  aiid  yet  that  they  had  not  a  fure  title  to  the 
promifes,  is  to  fay,  contrary  to  what  the  apoftle 
teaches,  that  the  promife  is  not  made  fure  to  all  the- 
feed.     Hence, 

4.  If  it  can  be  determined  what  thai  is,  which 
conneds  with  the  promifes,  it  can  be  determined, 
who  are  comprehended  in  the  termfeed. 

If  being  natural  defcendants  from  Abraham  did 
give  a  fure  title  to  the  promifes,  then  it  may  be  de- 
termined,  that  all  the  natural  offspring  of  Abraham, 
and  no  other  individual,  does  belong  to  the  feed. 
But  if  being  Ye2.\beliey(^rs  is  that  which  characlerizes 
the  feed,  then  believers  only  are  comprehended  in 
the  term.  But,  if  over  and  above  being  believers,, 
it  were  neceffary,  to  having  a  fure  title  to  the  promi- 
fes, that  perfons  were  alfo  natural  defcendants  from 
Abraham,  then  the  feed  muft  confill  of  the  believing 
pofterity  of  Abraham,  and  all  others  of  every  de- 
nomination, whether  believers  or  unbelievers,  mufl 
be  excluded.  But,  if  it  be  the  cafe,  that  a.ll  true  be- 
lievers, whether  they  be  Jews  or  Geniiksyhave  a  fure 


title  to  the  promifes,  then  the  feed   comprehends  be- 
lievers of  all  nations,  and  no  other  perfons. 

5.  If  it  were  the  cafe,  that  any  nation  or  body  of 
men  were  diftinguifhed,  as  the  body,  out  of  which, 
Cod  had  even  engaged  to  collect  thofe,  who  fhould, 
through  faith,  inherit  the  promifes,  yet  that  would 
not  denominate  the  individuals  of  fuch  a  nation  -or 
people,  the  ked. 

If  it  were  the  cafe,  that  God  had  promifed  Abra- 
ham, that  he  would  fupply  his  Church  with  members, 
from  his  natural  offspring,  by  raifmg  up  from  among 
them,  a  fufficient  number  of  believers,  yet  it  could 
not  be  faid,  that  Abrr-ham's  natural  offspring  were 
jefpedled  as  the  feed,  in  any  feafe  which  concerns  the 
prefent  inquiry.  It  might  with  equal  propriety  be 
laid,  that  all  Gentiles  where  the  gofpel  comes  are  ref- 
pefted  as  the  feed,  becaufe  God  has  now  engaged  to 
maintain  his  Church,  from  Gentile  nations,  in  dif- 
tinftion  from  the  pofterity  of  Abraham.  Yea  it 
might,  with  the  fame  propriety  be  faid,  that  all  man- 
kind are  refpefted  as  the  feed  given  to  Chriil,  for 
Chrifl*s  feed  is  to  be  collected  from  among  men. 
The  prefent  inquiry,  concerns  t/jat  only  which  dif- 
tinguiflies  the  real  feed  from  other  men — To  fay  that 
men  are  refpefted  as  the  feed,  or  any  body  of  men, 
becaufe  the  feed  is  to  be  collected  from  men  or  a  par- 
ticular nation,  gives  no  diftinguilhing  charaderiftic 
of  the  feed,  which  the  covenant  or  promife  ref- 
peds. 

6.  Being  in  <:ovenanl:,  or  having  a  title  to  the 
promifes,  and  fo  belonging  to  the  feed  refpefted  in 
them,  implies  that  the  conditions  of  the  covenant  are 
fulfilled. 

God  can  be  under  no  promifTary  obligations  to 
beftow  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant,  except  on  the 
condition  exprefied  in  the  covenant.  It  is  faid,  "  All 
covenants  contain  certain  conditions  ;  and  no  one 
hath  any  right  or  claim  to  the  blciTmgs  promifed  in 
thQ  covenant,  otherwife  than  upon  a  compliance  with 


li 


the  conditions  of  it."  p.  90.  Again,  "  We  no  where 
find  any  covenant  fubfilling  betwixt  God  and  any  par- 
ticular perfon,  which  proniifeth  the  blefling  of  the  fa- 
Your  and  friendfhip  of  God,  otherwife  than  on  the 
perfennance  oi certain  conditions,  on  the  part  of  the 
perfon  with  whom  it  is  eflablifhed."  p.  90.  91.  A 
title  to" the  promifes,  therefore,  implies,  that  the  con- 
ditions of  the  covenant  are  performed  or  fulfilled. 
Confequently  the  feed  confifts  of  fuch  and  only  of 
fuch,  who  have  performed,  or  complied  with  the 
conditions  of  the  covenant.  Infants,  therefore,  can- 
not be  confidered,  as  the  feed  refpefted  in  the  cove- 
nant, on  account  of  their  connexion  with  believing 
parents  ;  for  "  the  condition  on  which  parents  may 
expert  bleffings  to  defcend  to  their  children,  is  a  prop- 
er dedication  of  them  to  God,  and  bringing  them  up  . 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  p.  97. 
This  condition  of  theblefTmgs  of  the  covenant  cannot 
be  fulfilled,  refpeding  infants,  while  in  infancy  ;  and 
more  than  that,  there  is  no  fecurity  of  a  performance 
of  thofe  conditions  ;  for  there  is  no  fecurity  of  grace 
to  parents,  to  render  them  fo  faithful  in  the  educa- 
tion of  fuch  children,  as  is  requifite  to  fecure  the  blef- 
fings  of  the  covenant  for  them. 

7.  If  it  can  be  determined,  with  certainty,  that 
circumcifion  was  adminiftered,  according  to  divine  ap- 
pointment, to  fuch  children  as  had  no  title  to  the 
bleflings  of  the  covenant,  more  than  what  belongs  to 
the  children  of  heathen  parents  or  infidels,  it  is  cer- 
tain, that  in  fuch  inftances,  it  could  not  fignify  any 
covenant  title,  and  that  it  mufl  have  a  very  different 
import,  as  fuch  children  were  refpe6ted,  from  what 
it  had  when  adminiftered  to  an  adult  believer. 

As  an  adult  beheveris  refpeded,  it  is  faid,  to  be 
"^  God's  feal  of  the  fiibjects  title  to  eternal  life.''  But 
the  fame  thing  cannot  be  fignified,  concerning  fuch 
as  have  no  perfmal  title  to  the  bleffmgs  of  the  cove- 
nant :  for  in  fuch  a  cafe,  it  would  be  God's  feal  to  an 
acknowledged  falfliood.  Yet,  it  is  acknowledged, 
that  circumcifed  and  l?aptized  infants   have,  no  per- 


13 

fonal  right,  to  the  blefTings  of  the  covenant. — ^That 
the  promifes  arc  wholly  betwixt  God  and  parents. — 
That  children  are  wholly  paffive  ;  and,  that  till 
fuch  times  as  they  are  regenerated  by  the  grace  of 
God,  they  have  no  other  rights  than  the  children  of 
unbelievers,  p.  107,  108.  If  what  is  here  conced- 
ed be  true,  it  miift  be  certain,  that  infant  circumcifion 
and  infant  baptifm  were  never  defigned  to  be  adnjin- 
iftered,  in  token  of  any  title,which  fuch  children  have, 
to  the  bleHings  of  the  covenant ;  becaufe  it  is  ac- 
knowledged they  have  no  title.  And  it  will  alfo  fol- 
low, that  circumcifion  and  baptifm,  as  infants  are  ref- 
ped:ed,  cannot  import  the  fame  thing,  as  when  an  a- 
dult  believer  is  rcfpeded  ;  for  the  adult  believer  has 
a  real  title  to  the  promifes  ;  but  it  is  acknowledged, 
that  infants  of  believers  have  no  rights,  until  they 
become  perfonal  believers. 

8.  It  will  only  be  remarked  fmther,  that  in  de- 
termining the  import  and  defign  of  pofitive  inflitu- 
tions,  we  mull  be  determined  by  the  inftitutions 
themfelves. 

There  is,  in  this  cafe,  very  little  room  for  ingeni- 
ous conjectures,  and  arguments  derived  from  the  na- 
ture of  things.  It  is  impoffible  to  determine,  from 
the  reafon  and  nature  of  things,  why  circumcifion, 
as  a  token  of  the  covenant,  was  preferred  to  every 
other  polTible  fign.  But,  infinite  wifdom  was  pleaf- 
ed,  to  fingle  that  out  from  ail  other  tokens. — ^Perhaps, 
reafoning  from  analogy  has  been  too  far  fubftituted 
for  a  dired  appeal  to  divine  inftilution,  in  determin- 
ing the  import  and  defign  of  circumcifion  ;  particu- 
larly, in  fedion  iv,  p.  ^t, — 64. 

Reasoning  is,  doubtlefs,  necelTary,  in  determin- 
ing what  inftitutions  are  ;  particularly,  when  we  rea- 
fon from  faQ:s  which  are  clearly  revealed ;  but  we 
are  not  warranted  in  concluding,  that  certain  things 
do  belong  to  inch  inftitutions,  becaufe  they  may  ap- 
pear to  us,  asreafonable  and  important,  as  many  oth- 
er things,  v/hich  do  evidently  form  a  part  of  divine 
inftitutions. 


14 


SECTION    ir.t 

Jfihc  main  things  advanced,  in  oppofttion  to  the  fcheme 
contained  in  my  inquiry,  were  true.,  they  would  not 
militate  againjl  it^  fg  far  as  the  deftgn  of  infant  cir- 
mmcifwn  or  of  infant  baptifm  is  refpeded* 

IT  was  my  defign,  in  a  former  inquiry  on  this  fub- 
jed,  to  fhew,  that  under  preceding  difpenfation?, 
infants  were  not  to  be  circumcifed,  nor  under  the  pre- 
fent  difpenfation  to  be  baptized,  under  the  notion  of 
their  having  any  perfonal  titles  to  the  bleffings  of  the 
covenant  ;  either   preceding,  or    in  confequence  of 
their  circunicifion  or  baptifm.— That,  whatever  coV- 
enant  fubfifts  between  God  and  parents,  it  is  between 
them  only  ;  and  their  children  have  no  titles  to  the 
bleffings  llipulated  in  it.     Should  it   be   conceded, 
that  there  is  a  covenant  exifling   between  God   and 
believing  parents,  refpefting  their  children,  as  exten- 
^uX^Jve  as  that  which  is  ^le^  for,  it  would  not  follow, 
that  infants  are  in  covenant,  or  have  any  claims   to  a 
fmgle  bleffing.     This  is  amply  conceded.     It  is  faid, 
p.  io8.   That  the  proniifes  are  made  wholly  to  pa- 
rents.    And,  p.  lo;,   it   is  granted,  that    ''  All  the 
promifes  of  the  covenant  as  it  re/peels  the  i7f ant  feed  ef 
believers,  are  made  to  the  parent,  he  alone  can  have 
£iny  right  or  authority  to  plead  them."     As    to   the  in- 
fant, it  is  admitted,  that  it  hath  no  claims  or  cove- 
nant rights,  any  more  than  the  child  of  an  unbeliev- 
er.    And  in  infant  baptifm,  it  is  faid,  that  "  Ns pro- 
mifes were  fealed  to  us'*  p.  io8.     And,  when  fpeakfng 
of  what  takes  place  in  baptifm,  refpeding  the  infant 
baptized,  it  is  faid,  "  Nor  doth  this  give  us  any  more 
"  right  when  we  come  to  adult  age,  to  be  confidcred, 
"  received  and   treated  as  chriHiayis  ;  and  as  being 
"  ourfelves  in  covenant  with  G^^,than  if  we  never  had 
"  been  baptized,"  (p.  108.)     It   is,  therefore,  fully 
^needed,  that  children  of  believers  are  not  in  cove- 


nant,  and  are  not  to  be  baptized,  in  token  of  any  per- 
ibnal  title,  which  they  can  have  to  the  blefiings  of  the 
covenant,  as  is  held  forth  in  my  inquiry  ;  jiotwith- 
iianding  the  fuppofed  covenant,  which  exifls,  be- 
tween God  and  believers,-  refpecling  their  children. 
Ifitwere  admitted,  therefore,  that  there  is  as  exten- 
five  a  covenant  exifting,  asis  pretended,  yet  the  bap- 
tifm  of  infants  could  not  be  defigned,  as  a  token  of 
their  perfonal  title  to  covenant  bleffings  ;  becaufe 
they  have  no  fuch  title  as  is  exprcfsly  granted.  Which 
is  the  very  principle  advanced  in  my  former  inquiry. 

Again  ;  a  brief  attention  to  the  nature  of  the  fup- 
pofed promifes,  which  refpect  the  natural  feed  of  be- 
lievers, will  make  it  evident,  that  they  contain  noth-^ 
ing,  which  will  conclude  any  thing,  againil  the 
fcheme  advanced  in  my  inquiry ;  any  more  than  if 
the  condition  of  all  the  promifes  were,  the  repentance 
and  faith  of  children.  It  is  faid,  there  is  a  condition- 
al promife,  that  the  children  of  believers  fhall^fhare 
in  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant.  The  con4ition,  it  is 
faid,  is  their  being  cordially  dedicated  to ''God,  and 
faithfully  educated  by  their  parents.  It  may  alfo  be 
faid,  that  there  is  a  promife,  that  all  children,  with- 
out diftinclion,  on  the  condition  of  perfonal  faith, 
ihall  be  faved.  The 'former  covenant  gives  no  abfo- 
lute  fecurity  of  i\i&  faithfiilnefs  of  parents,  and  the 
latter  gives  no  fecurity  of  the  perfonal  faiib  of  chil- 
dren. They  neither  of  them  amount  to  any  thing- 
more,  than  a  tender  of  falvation.  In  both  cafes,  it 
depends  on  the  uncovenanted  grace  and  mercy  of 
God,  whether  children  will  everfkare  in  the  blefiings 
of  the  covenant.  God  can  as  eafily  perfuade  chil- 
dren to  believe,  as  perfuade  partnts  to  be  faithful  ; 
and  the  one  is  equally  fecured  with  the  other.  In 
fhort  there  is  no  fecurity  in  either  cafe.  The  fup- 
pofed promife  makes  no  advances,  in  introducing 
children  into  covenant,  beyond  what  are  made  in  the 
general  tender  ofthegofpel.  As  Doctor  Hopkins 
ohferves,  the  promife  provides  no  grace  to  render  pa- 


i6 

rents  faithful,  in  the  fenfe  of  the  promife  ; — they  may 
bring  a  curfe  upon  their  children,  rather  than  a  blef- 
fing.  So  notwithflanding  the  promife  of  falvation, 
on  the  condition  oi per fonal  faith,  children  may,  thro* 
unbelief,  bring  a  curfe  upon  themfelves,  rather  than 
the  bleffings  which  are  tendered- 

Were  it  true,  that  God  had  fecured  to  believers, 
that  grace  which  is  requifite  to  their  being  faithful, 
in  the  covenant  he  eftabhflies  with  them,  there  would 
then  be  a  connexion  between  being  the  children  of 
believers  and  falvation,  according  to  the  fuppofed 
promife  ;  although  it  would  not  conflitute  any  per- 
ibnal  title,  refpedting  the  infant.  But  no  fuch  grace 
is  fecured,  by  any  covenant  whatever.  The  implead- 
ed promife,  therefore,  lays  no  other  foundation  for 
adminillering  baptifra  to  infants,  on  account  of  their 
being  refpefted  as  heirs  of  the  covenant,  than  for  ad- 
miniftering  it  to  all  infants,  under  the  gofpel,  bccaufe 
they  are  refpecled  in  the  covenant  which  God  reveals 
in  it.  There  is  no  fecurity,  either  in  the  fuppofed 
promife,  or  rather  tender  which  God  makes  to  be- 
lievers, refpefling  their  offspring,  or  in  the  tender  of 
falvation,  on  the  condition  of  perfonal  faith,  that 
fuch  children  will  ever  fhare  in  the  bleiTmgs  of  the 
covenant.  In  both  cafes,  children  are  dependent  on 
uncovenanted  grace  and  mercy. 

It  hence  appears,that  the  extraordinary  relation  of 
the  children  of  believers  to  the  covenant,  on  account 
of  the  impleaded  promife,  which  is  fo  much  infilled 
on,  is  altogether  ideal.  Were  it  true,  that  there  was 
fuch  a  promife,  it  would  not  introduce  the  children 
of  believers  into  any  perfonal  covenant  (landing,  as 
is  fully  conceded  ;  and  fo  v*ould  not  militate,  in  the 
leafl,  againfl  the  principal  idea  infifled  on,  in  my  In- 
quiry. And,  if  it  be  the  cafe,  that  God  has  promifed 
to  parents^  the  falvation  of  their  children,  on  the  con- 
dition of  parental  faithfulnefs,  but  has  not  given  any 
fecurity  of  their  faithfulnefs,  it  amounts  to  no  more 


'7 

than  a  bare  tender  of  falvation  ;  fuch  as  is  made  to 
all  men  and  all  children,  under  gofpd  light.- 

It  is  condantlyfuppofed,  that  on  account  of  the 
promife,  nov/  under  confideration,  God  has  peculiar- 
ly diftinguifhed  the  children  of  believers,  and  admit- 
ted them  into  fome  peculiar  relation  to  himfelf ;  in 
confequence  of  which,  they  are  to  be  baptized,  in  to- 
ken of  their  fpecial  relation  to  the  covenant.  It -is 
true,  if  there  be  fuch  a  promife,  that  God  is  tender- 
ing the  falvation  of  children  to  believing  parents,' on 
the  condition  of  the  faithfuinefs  of  fuch  parents,  in- 
flead  of  the  perfonal  faith  of  childi  en,— 'the  covenant 
condition  of  the  gofpel  tender.  'But  then,  it  is  eqtial- 
ly  true,  that  fpecial  grace  is  as  requifite  to  render  pa- 
rents faithful,  as  it  is  to  produce  faith  in  childreii  % 
and  fuch  requifite  grace,  is,  in  neither  cafe,  fccured 
by  any  covenant.  The  truth  then  is,  that  in  both 
cafes,  children  are  at  the  difpofal  of  the  uncovenant- 
ed  mercy  of  God — That,  in  neither  cafe,  is  there  any 
fecurity  of  the  falvation  of  fuch  children. 

But,  the  promife,  at  beft,  does  not  introduce  the 
children  of  believers  into  any  perfonal  covenant 
ftanding — They  have  no  promifes  made  to  them,  ei- 
ther before,  or  in  confequence  of  baptifm,  as  is  fully 
acknowledged. Whether  there  be  any  fuch  prom- 
ifes as  the  impleaded  one,  will  be  confidered  in  its 
proper  place. — All  that  is  now  infilled  on  is,  that  if 
there  were  fuch  a  promife,  it  would  not  militate  a- 
gainlf  the  main  principle  advanced  in  my  former  In- 
quiry. This,  I  trull,  appears,  with  fufficient  clear- 
nefs,  from  the  obfervations  which  have  been  made. 


i8 


SECTION    lit. 

The  promifes  contained  in  or  annexed  to  the  gracious 
covenant,  which  God  ejlablijhed  with  Abraham, 
eonjidered  and  explained, 

THAT  the  covenant,  which  God  difpenfed  to  A- 
braham  was,  radically  and  eflentially,  the  cov- 
enant of  grace,  is  believed,  by  all  pedo-baptifls.  It 
will,  however,  be  admitted,  that  there  were  fome 
things,  which  are  to  be  confidered  as  stppendages,  an- 
nexed to  that  difpenfation  of  the  covenant.  It  may 
well  be  fuppofcd,  that  every  difpenfation  of  that  im- 
portant covenant,  will  be  attended  with  different  reg- 
ulations, fuited  to  the  age  of  the  world  and  flate  of 
the  Church,  at  the  time  of  its  introduction.  Such 
peculiarities  are  not  to  be  confidered,  as  ejfmtial  p^LTt^ 
of  the  covenant,  but  as  appendages,  which  become 
neceflary,  on  account  of  the  flate  and  circumflances 
of  the  Church.  Of  this  nature,  it  is  fuppofed  thofe 
promifes  were,  which  God  made  to  Abraham,  of  be- 
ing "  a  father  of  many  nations,"  and  of  kings  com- 
ing from  his  loins  ; — Of  the  "  land  of  Canaan  for 
aneverlafting  poffeflion  ;^*  and,  of  being  the  progen- 
itor of  the  MefTiah.  Of  this  nature,  were  the  inflitu- 
tions  of  facrifices,  &c.  under  the  Mofaic  difpenfation^ 
It  is  univcrfally  believed,  that  thofe  promifes  and  in- 
fUtutions  were  peculiarities  of  thofe  difpenfations  of 
the  covenant  oi  grace  ;  and  were  fuited  to  the  age 
and  circumflances  of  the  church,  during  their  con- 
tinuance. As  particular  inflitutions  and  promifes 
are  varied,  according  to  the  different  circumflances 
of  the  church,  confequently,  in  every  different  dif- 
penfation of  the  covenant  of  grace,  it  is  to  be  exped- 
ed,  there  will  be  annexed  different  appendages  ;  al- 
though the  ejfential  bleffmgs  of  the  covenant  will  be 
the  fame,  through  every  difpenfation. 

Hkncb  it  becomes  evident,  that  it  cannot  be  con- 


*9 

eluded,  that  every  particular  promife,  which  Was  an- 
nexed to  the  difpenfation  of  the  covenant,  in  the  time 
^  of  Abraham  or  Mofes,  is  alfo  annexed  to  the  difpen- 
fation of  the  covenant,  under  the  gofpel  ;  or  that 
there  are  certainly  the  fame  particular  inftitutions.  It 
is  not  fuppofed/  by  any,  that  the  promifes  made  to 
Abraham,  that  he  ihould  be  fruitful,— that  his  feed 
ihould  inherit  Canaan  ; — or,  that  the  inftitution  of 
facrifices,  in  the  time  of  Mofes,  do  exift  under  the 
prefent  difpenfation.  And  there  are  obvious  reafons 
for  their  not  being  continued,  arifmg  from  the  differ- 
ent ftate,  age  and  circumftances  of  the  Church.* 
Thofe  extra  or  noneffential  promifes  may  be  varied, 
under  different  difpenfations  of  the  fame  covenant, 
and  the  covenant  itfelf  be  the  fame,  under  every  dif- 
penfation. Thus,  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  no 
promifes  are  made  to  believers,  of  an  earthly  Canaan, 
— of  being  the  progenitors  of  a  faviour  ;  yet,  the  cov- 
enant difpenfed  is  the  fame,  with  that  difpenfed  to  A- 
braham.  Varying  circumftantial  promifes  and  infti- 
tutions, although  it  may  vary  the  difpenfation  of  the 
covenant,  yet  it  does  not  alter  the  covenant  itfelf 
As  thofe  promifes  which  God  made  to  Abraham,  of 
his  being  fruitful, — of  his  being  the  progenitor   of  a 

*  It  may  be  thought,  by  iome,  that  the  foregoing  obfervations  do 
dejlroyot  ^jjeaken  tht  ufual  argument  in  favour  of  infant  baptifrn, 
■which  isdcrived  from  the  inftitution  of  circumcifion,  under  prececd- 
ing  difpenfations. — But,  it  is  apprehended,  that  they  do  not,  i«  the 
leaft  affed  it.  T4ier«  are  the  moft  indubitable  proofs  of  an  inftitu- 
tion, under  th-e  gofpel,  which  is  of  the  fame  nature  with  circum- 
cifion under  preceedingdifpetiiatioiis  ;  namely, t)aptifn:i.  The  oniy 
•queftionto  be  determined  is,  whetiver  infants  are  the  p roper  fubjejdis 
of  it  ?  As  much  may  be  prefumed  in  favour  of  their  beiuj  fuch,  on 
the  principles  which  have  been  advanced,  as  on  any  other.  Infants 
were  the  fubjeifts  of  the  fame  ordicancc,  orof-oiie  of  like  import,  un- 
der former  difpenfations.  And  although  circmnciiion  is  aboliihed, 
andbaptifm  isinftituted  in  its  place,  yet  there  is  not  the  kaft  intima- 
tion of  any  alteration  refpeAing  thefubjecfts.  There  is, therefore, fuf- 
ficientreafon  to  believe,  that  infants  are  the  fubje(5ts  of  baptiim,  a? 
they  w-ereof-circumcilion.  It  is  incumbent  on  Antipedobaptifts,  to 
advance  pofitive  evidence  of  the  abolition  of  the  antient  precepts, 
whic h  con ftitutcd  infants  the  fubjeds  of  a  fimilar  ordinance,  before 
they  object  a  want  of  precept.  But,  as  much  may  be  prefumed  on 
-the  above  obfervationa,  in  favour  of  infant  baptifm,  as  on  any  other. 


ao 

Saviour, — of  inheriling  the  earthly  Canaan,  and  of 
having  a  church  maintakiedin  his  family  in  particu- 
lar^, dp  not  efientially  belong  to  the  covenant  of  grace, 
fo  it  cannot  be  certainly  concluded,  that  any  of  them 
fxiil,  under  the  prefent  difpenfation,  becaufe  they 
4id  exiil  under  the  preceeding. 

.From  this  view  of  thofe  extra  promifes,  which 
^veremade  to  Abraham,  it  was  thought  unnecelfary, 
to  enter  into  a  particular  conhderation  of  them,  in 
my  former  inquiry.  As  it  was  evident,  that  Abra- 
ham's natural  offspring  were  not  perfonally  entitled, 
to  the  efTential  bleffings  of  the  covenant,  it  was  con- 
cluded, that  they  were  not  circumcifed  in  token  of 
any  fuch  title,  or  as  being  the  feed.  And,  that  fince 
the  covenant  was  wholly  between  God  and  the  pa- 
rent, fo  circumcifion,  as  a  token  of  the  covenant,  did 
wholly  refped  the  parent.  However,  it  is  fmce  faid, 
that  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham  were  fo  refpeded 
in  the  covenant,  "vvhich  God  made  with  him,  particu- 
larly, of  fupporting  a  church  in  his  family,  as  that 
infants  w^ere  properly  confidered  as  the  feed.  Al- 
though being  Abraham's  natural  feed  "  did  not  make 
them  as-  the  feed  to  whom  the  Lord  would  be  a 
God." — A  promife  of  the  fame  import,  it  is  furthei 
faid,  is  transferred  or  continued  to  Geiilile  believers  j 
and  confequently  their  children  are  to  be  baptized, 
in  token  of  the  refpecl  paid  them  in  the  covenant,  as 
the  children  of  believers  were  circumeifed,  under  the 
former  difpenfations. 

It  is  necelfary,  therefore,  to  enter  into  a  p  :  ;icu- 
lar  confideration  of  the  promifes  which  God  made 
to  Abraham,  in  the  difpenfation  of  his  gracious  cov- 
enant  to  him  5  recorded  in  Gen.  xvii.  1—8. 

Those  promifes,  in  which  Abraham's  natural  ofi- 
fpring  were  refpeded,  may  be  comprehended  in  the 
following  things. 

I.  That  Abraham  fhould  be  exceedingly  fruitful, 
and  be  a  father  of  many  nation?. 


2.  That  Abraham's  poflerity  fliould  poflefs  the 
land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlafting  poiTeffion.  This 
promife  of  Canaan,  however  did  not  refped  all  the 
poderity  of  Abraham.  The  promife  only  imparted, 
that  fome  of  Abraham's  pofterity  (more  or  fewer  of 
them,as  Godin his fovere^gnty  fliould  determine)fl"iouId 
poilefs  that  land  ;  and  at  the  time  he  fliould  appoint. 
Accordingly,  feveral  generations  were  entirely  walled 
before  any  of  Abraham's  pofterity  entered  upon  Ca- 
naan, as  a  fulfilment   of  this  piomife. 

3.  Another  promife,  which  God  made  to  Abra- 
hara,was,that  a  Saviourihould  proceed  from  his  loins. 

It  is  to  be  remarked,  again,  that  this  promife,  al- 
though it  was  to  have  its  accomplifliment,  in  the  pof- 
terity of  Abraham  ;  yet  it  never  was  defigned  to  ref- 
pecl  ^Abraham's  pofterity,  in  every  line  and  direclion. 
There  was  a  particular  line  from  Abraham,  in  which 
the  promife  was  to  be  accompli flied  ;  in  purfuing 
which  line,  much  the  greateft  part  of  Abrr;hum's 
pofterity  would  be  excluded.  It,  in  the  beginning, 
refpe<3:ed,  Ifaac,  in  diftindion  from  Jjkmacl ;  then 
'Jacobs  in  diftindfion  from  Efau. 

4.  THER.E  was  a  promife  made  to  Abraham,  of  a 
church,  to  be  kept  up  in  his  fam.ily,  until  Chrift,  the 
promifed  {tzc^,  fliould  come. 

This  promife,  however,  did  not  exclude  believers, 
of  other  nations,  from  the  church,  as  appears  from 
Exodus,  XX.  48,  49.  But  then,  there  wis  no  nation 
particularly  refpeded  in  this  promife,  except  that 
which  proceeded  from  the  loins  of  Abraham'.  This 
is  the  proniife  refpecled,  where  it  is  faid,  that  the 
promife  which  Gsd  made  to  Abraham  "  fecured  the 
exiftence  and  continuance  of  real  religion — a  true 
church  in  his  family  and  pofterity."  p.  76. — It  is  alfo 
urged,  that  this  promife  is  continued  or  transferred 
to  Gentile  believers  and  their  ofi^spring.  So  that 
there  is  the  fame  fecurity  of  the  maintainance  of  a 
church,  among  the  defcendants  of  Gentile  believers. 


22 

as  there  was,  formerly,   of  the   maintalnance  of  a 
church  in  Abraham's  family. 

It  is  neceffary,  therefore,  particularly  to  confider 
this  promife,  and  to  endeavour  to  afcertain  its  defign 
and  import.  The  following  obfervatipns  may  fub- 
ferve  fuch  a  purpofe. 

1.  The  promife  was  made  to  Abraham,  and  wa« 
not  transferred  to  any  one  after  Abraham. 

The  good,  which  is  the  fubjeft  matter  of  the  prom- 
ife, was  promifed,  as  a  reward  of  Abraham's  faithful- 
nefs.  And  although  Abraham's  poflerity  were  ref- 
pefted,  as  the  body  in  which  it  fhould  be  accom- 
plifhed,  yet  Abraham's  fucceflbrs  could  not  plead  the 
promife,  as  made  to  them,  in  the  fenfe  in  which  it  was 
made  to  Abraham.  The  promife  might  ever  after 
be  pled,  as  made  to  Abraham.  Hence  it  is  obferva- 
ble,  that  the  Jews,  in  every  age,  treated  it  and  pled 
it  as  a  promife  made  to  their  father  Abraham,  'in  dif- 
tindion  from  themfelves.  When  God  beftowed  pe- 
culiar bleffings  upon  the  Jews,  it  was  common  to  ac- 
knowledge them,  as  a  fulfilment  of  the  promife, 
which  God  made  to  Abraham  ; — becaufe  he  remem- 
bered the  covenant,  which  he  had  made,  and  the  oath 
which  he  had  fworn  to  him.  All  the  diftinguifhing 
favours,  which  God  beftowed  on  that  people,  were 
ever  confidered,bythe  pious  Jews,  as  the  teftimonials 
of  the  love  and  refpeft,  which  God  bore  to  Abraham, 
in  diftindion  from  themfelves. 

2.  The  promife  under  confideration,  of  continuing 
a  church  in  the  family  of  Abraham,  was  not  an  ejfcn- 
iial  part  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

The  covenant  of  grace,  in  its  nature,  no  more 
confirms  its  blefhngs  to  Abraham's  natural  pofterity, 
than  to  any  other  nation.  Originally,  it  would  have 
been  no  more  inconfiftent  with  the  covenant  of  grace, 
to  have  limited  the  tender,  and  a£lual  beftowment  of 
its  bleflings,  to  any  other  nation  or  family,  than  to 
Abraham's.  Thelc  obfcrvations,  it  is  prefumed,  will 
not  be  controverted.     And,  it   is  equally  true,  that 


2 'I 


Abraham  might  htve  enjoyed  the  effential  bleflings  of 
the  covenant,  if  God  had  made  him  no  promife,  of 
fupportiiig  a  church  among  his  defcendants.— Such 
a  promife  therefore,  was  but  an  extra-proinife — an  ap- 
pendage to  the  covenant  of  grace.  In  fuch  a  fenfe 
this  promife  was  confidered  by  Prefident  Edwards.* 
Chrift,  the  Son,  had  a  promife  from  the  father,  that 
he  (hould  "  fee  his  feed"  &c.  but  that  promife,  al- 
though it  feemed  a  church,  did  not  confine  it  to  A- 
braham*s  family. 

3.  The  promife,  under  confideration,  although  it 
was  to  meet  with  a  fulfihnent  in  Abraham's  natural 
cifspring,  yet  had  no  refpecb,  and  was  never  defigned 
to  be  extended,  to  W/ the  branches  of  his  family. 

IsHMAEL,  Esau  and  their  pofterity,  were  never  rc- 
fpeftedin  thofe  promifes,  which  God  made  to  Abra- 
ham ;  either  of  inheriting  Canaan — of  being  the  pro- 
genitors of  Chrift,  or   of  conftituting  the  church. 

This  is  clear  from  fad,  as  well  as  fcripture  declara- 
tions. This  promife,  therefore,  did  not  refpe<a  all 
the  natujal  offspring  of  Abraham.  Iflimael  could 
not  have  been  circumcifed,  therefore,  in  token  of  his 
being  refpeded  in  fuch  a  promife  ;  for  Ifhmael  and 
his  pofterity  were,  really,  no  more  refpeded  in  it,  than 
Ham  and  his  pofterity.  The  promife,  as  to  the  de- 
fign  of  it,  implied  thus  much,  that  a  church  fhould 
be  kept  up  among  Abraham's  natural  offspring ;  but 
was  never  defigned  that  it  fhould  be  as  cxtenfive  as 
that  offspring.  Had  God  kept  up  a  church,  in  Abra- 
ham's family,  although  a  great  proportion  of  his  off- 
spring were  excluded  from  it,  the  promife  would  have 
been  fulfilled.  In  this  refpeft,  it  was  Hke  the  pro- 
mife of  the  Land  of  Canaan.  God  bound  himfelf  by 
promife,  to  give  that  land  to  Abraham's  pofterity, 
for  an  inheritance.  But  it  was  not  the  defign  of 
the  promife,  to*fecure  it  to  Abraham's  whole  pofte- 
rity.    It  was  confiftent  with  the  defign  of  that  pro- 


*  Sec  his  Inquiry  into  QualiCcations,  &:c,  p.  87— 


88. 


24 


mife,  that  not  one  of  Abraham's  pofterity  fliould  m- 
herit  Canaan,   for    federal  generations.-Thus    the 
promife,  of  maintaining  a  church  in  Abraham  s  fami- 
Iv   was  fuch,  as  that  -whole   branches   of  h!S   lamily 
mLht  be  excluded  ;  and  according  to  the  true  fpirit 
and  defien  of  the  promife,  be  no  more  refpefted  ni  it, 
than  any   other  family ;— than  .?// ;;/.;2  are  refpefted 
in  the  promife  made  to  Chrift,  that  he  {hould  "  fee 
his  feed  ;"  ior  Chriil's  feed  were  to  confift  ot  men, 
as  the  church  refpeded,  in  this  promife,  was  to  con- 
fill  of  Abraham's  natural  pofteiity.     The  one  proraiie 
had  no  refpea  to  all  men,  nor  the  other  to  all  Abra- 
ham's natural  oft'spring.     The  promife  made  to  A- 
braham,of  thefupportof-a  church   m  his    taraily, 
refpefted  his  natural  offspring,  only,  as  the  body  or 
people,  out  of  which, the  feed  (hould  be  collefted  ;  m 
the  fame  manner,  the  promife  of  a  feed  to  Chnft,  as 
a  reward  of  his  faithfulnefs,  refpeded  mankind,   as 
the  body  out  of  which  that  feed  fhould  be  collefted. 
The  whole  human  race,  therefore,  are  refpeded  as  the 
feed  given  to  Chrift,  precifely  in.  the  fame  fenfe,  that 
Abraham's  natural  offspring  were  refpeded  as    the 
feed,  in  the  promife  made  to    Abraham.     1  he  tact 
however  is,  that  the  promife  made  to  Abraham  was 
never  defigned  to  extend  to  all   Abraham's  natural 
feed  ;  nor'^the  promife  made  to  Chrift,  to  all  the  in- 
dividuals  of  the  human  race.     This  may  Ihew,  with 
'   what  propriety  Abraham's  natural  feed  are  confidered, 
as  the  feed  refpeaed  in  the  promife,  under  confider- 

ation.  ^  .        , 

4.  It  is  further  to  be  obferved,  concerning  the 
promife  in  queftion,  that  it  did  not  entitle  or  fecure, 
one  of  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant,  to  any  individu- 
al  of  Abraham's  pofterity,  confidered  hmply  as  a  de- 
fcendant  from  him.  .   . 

This  will  be  readily  acknowledged  ;  for  it  is  ex- 
prefsly  faid,  "  Being  children  of  the  flefti  did  not 
mark  them  as  the  feed,  to  whom  the  Lord  would  be 
a  God."     P.  16.  And,  p.  15,  "It  is  on  all  hands 


^5 

conceded,  that  there  is  no  proniife  that  the  Lord  will 
be  a  God  to  any  but  bel'uversJ*  If  it  be  the  cafe, 
that  being  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham  did  not  mark 
any  one  as  belonging  to  the  feed,  merely  faying  that 
Abraham's  natural  feed  were,  the  feed  rcfpeded,  is  no 
further  a  defcription  of  the  feed,  refpcCced  in  the 
promife  made  to  Abraham,  than  faying  men  were  ve- 
fpected,  as  the  feed  given  to  Chrifl,  is  a  defcription  of 
Chrifl's  feed.  The  fad:  is,  that  being  men^  does  not 
mark  any  indivdual,  as  one  of  Chrifl*s  feed  ;  neither 
does  being  a  natural  defcendant  from  Abraham,  mark 
any  individual,  as  one  of  the  feed  of  Abraham,  in  the 
fenfe  of  the  promife. 

5.  It  is  worthy  of  particular  notice,  that  the  prom- 
ife made  to  Abraham,  of  maintaining  a  church  in  hi^ 
family,  was  a  promife  which  was  local  and  tempora- 
ry ; — a  peculiarity  of  the  Abrahamic  difpenfation,  and 
.  of  the  Mofaic,  which  was  grafted  into  it. 

If  this  obfervation  be  true,  it  will  efFcdually  re- 
move, the  foundation  of  the  fcheme  of  baptifm,  which 
has  been  oppofed  to  that  contained  in  my  inquiry. 
It  is  infilled  on,  that  this  promife  contained  a  fecuri- 
ty  of  true  religion,  among  Abraham's  natural  feed  : 
and,  that  there  is  a  tranfer  of  it,  to  Gentile  believers 
and  their  natural  feed.  The  exiilence  of  fuch  a 
promife  is  confidered,  as  that  which  conflituted  the 
propriety  of  infants  being  formerly  circumcifed  and 
now  baptized,  as  the  {c&(\  refpeded  in  the  covenant. 
It  appears,  I  trufl,  from  what  was  obferved  in  the  laft 
fedion,  that  if  all  this  were  admitted,  nothing  could 
be  inferred  in  oppofition  to  the  fcheme  advanced  in 
my  inquiry :  Yet,  if  fuch  a  view  of  the  promife  pro- 
ceeds from  miftake  and  mifapprehenfion  of  its  defign, 
it  is  important  it  fliould  appear. And,  the  follow- 
ing confiderations,  it  is  believed,  make  it  evident, 
that  the  promife,  inftead  of  its  being  one,  which  was 
defigned  to  be  continued  over  to  the  gofpel  difpenfa- 
tion, was  local  and  temporary  j — adapted  to  the  ftate 
D 


and  circumftances  of  the  church  under  preceding  di(- 
penfations, 

1.  The  very  nature  of  the  promlfe  leads  to  the 
conclufion,  that  it  v/as  local  and  temporary. 

The  promife  fecured  to  Abraham,  a  church,  to 
confift  of  his  natural  offspring  :  This  is  abundantly 
infilled  on.  The  very  promife  is  reflrided  to  Abra- 
ham's naiural  oflspring,as  the  people  from  which  the 
church  fliould  be  colleded.  The  prontife  cannot  op- 
erate, refpe^ling  any  other  pofterity.  A  like  prom- 
ife may  be  made,  refpecting  Gentile  believers  ;  but 
if  there  be  any  fuch  promife,  it  muil  be  a  new  one  ; 
fortbe  promife  made  to  Abraham  refpecled  his  pof- 
terity, in  diftindion  from  the  pofterity  of  any  other 
progenitor.  It  was  defigned,  therefore,  to  continue 
fo  long  as  God  defigned  to  continue  his  church,  in 
Abraham's  family,  in  diftindion  from  other  nations, 
and  no  longer.  ^ 

2.  It  is  natural  to  conclude,  that  the  promife  un- 
der confideration  was  temporary,  and  a  peculiarity  of 
preceding  difpenfations,  as  all  the  other  particular 
promifes,  among  which  this  is  ranked,  were  unquef- 
tionably  fuch. 

Tills  was  the  cafe,  as  to  the  promife  made  to  A- 
braham,  of  being  a  father  of  many  nations — of  a  fav- 
ior  from  his  loins ; — and,  of  his  feed's  polfefrmg  Ca- 
naan. JsTo  one  fuppofes  thofe  promifes  are  continued 
to  believing  Gentiles,  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation. 
This  confideration  renders  it  probable,  that  the  prom- 
ife to  Abraham,  of  the  fupport  of  a  church  in  his  fami- 
ly, was  temporary;  unlefs  fome  peculiar  rcafons,in  this 
cafe,  would  lead  to  a  dirferent  conclufion.     But, 

3.  The  truth  is,  there  v/ere  peculiar  reafons  for 
the  promife,  under  preceding  difpenfations,  arifing 
from  the  Hate  of  the,  church  at  that  time,  which  do 
not  exiit  under  the  prefent  difpenfatioa. 

Wpien  God  entered  upon  the  difpenfation  cf  the 
covenant  to  Abraham,  the  church  was  in  an  infanf 
ilate.     Things  were  ilot  then  prepared  for  extenfivc- 


27 

operations.  .  The  principal  charadler,  that  of  Jesus 
Christ,  was  not  introduced  on  the  ftage.  Extra- 
ordinary preparations  were  neceffary  for  his  intro- 

dutlion. The  diipenfations,  from  the  time  of  A.- 

braham,  were  defigned,  as  preparatory  fteps  for 
Chrifl's  introdudion.     Every  meafure,  which  wa? 

taken,  pointed  to  that  important  event. 

That  the  way  might  be  prepared  for  fo  extraor- 
dinary an  event,  as  the  appearance  of  Chrifl,  it  was 
nccellary,  that  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  and 
of  the  rtate  of  mankind,  (liould  be  preferved  and  pro- 
moted in  the  world.  This  made  it  neceflfary,  for 
God  to  feled  a  particular  people,  and  by  fpecial  and' 
peculiar  means,  to  communicate  to  them,  the  knowl> 
edge  of  himfelf  and  of  his  defigns.  It 'is  true,  it  wa's^ 
in  the  compafs  of  God's  power,  to  have  trained  up  al? 
nations,  in  the  fame  way  ;  but  this  mull  have  fo  filled' 
#ie  world  with  miracles,  as  to  deftroy  their  ufe  5  f6r 
they  mult  then  have  been  fo  frequent,  that  they  would 
have  been  ranked  among  the  common  laws  of  na- 
ture. And  befides,  the  way  was  not  prepared  for 
fuch  extenfive  operations.  It  was  necefl'arv,  there- 
fore, that  a  particular  people  or  nation  Hiould  be  fep- 
arated,  and  by  figns  and  wonders  trained  up,  to  the 
knowledge  and  acknowledgement  of  the  one  true 
God,  until  Chrift  fhould  appear.  Ar.d  Abraham  and 
his  pofterity  were  fclecfed  for  that  purpofe,  as  a  re- 
ward of  Abraham's  peculiar  faithfulnefs. And,  as 

it  was  neceffary,  that  one  nation  Ihould  be  felecfed 
from  all  other  nations,  fo  it  was  neceffary,  that  this 
people  Should  be  kept  diflind  from  the  heathen  na- 
tions, that  they  might  not  be  corrupted  by  their  vices. 
Hence  it  became  neceffary,  that  a  country  iliould  be 
peculiarly  devoted  to  them.  On  this  was  grounded, 
ihe  promife  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  inheritance  j- 
and  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  that  good  land  were 
driven  out.  As  the  MeiTiah  was  to  proceed  from  A- 
braham's  loins,  fo  that  nation  was,  from  the  nature  of 
th^   cafe,  pointed  o^jt,  as  the  people  to  be  prepared 


for  ihe  r<iCfcption  of  Chrift ;  for  their  expedations 
:\nd  national  concerns,  in  the  great  event,  woiiW,  nat- 
urally intereft  their  feelings  and  awaken  their  atten- 
tion.  Thus  it  appears,  that  the  proinife  of  a  church 
and  the  confequent  enjoyment  of  means,  made  way 
for  and  rendered  the  promife  of  the  land  of  Canaan 
neceflary.  The  latter  promife,  became  neceifary,  to 
the  execution  of  the  former. 

Besides   the  things  which  have  been  mentioned, 
there  is  another   confideration  which  points  out  the 
xvifdcm  and  importance  of  the  promifes,  in  the  time 
of  preceding  difpenfations  in  particular.     I'he  great 
^nd  important  bleflings  of  the  covenant,  of  pardon 
smd  falvation  had  been  publifhed,  only  in  a  very  fum- 
mary  way.    Their  fulfilment,    or  full   accompHfli- 
men,  was  -future  and  diftant.     The   people  of  God 
had,  at  that  time,  little  or  no  experience  of  God's 
faithfulnefs  in  fulliling  his  promifes.     It  was  neceifa^ 
ry,  therefore,   that  God   Ihould  enter  upon  fuch  a 
courfe  of  difpenfations,  as  fhould  ftrengthen  the  faith 
and  increafe  the  comfort  of  faints,  in  thofe  promifes 
which  refpeded  diftant  and  invifible  things.      ,No 
meafures  could  be  better  calculated  to  anlwer  thofe 
purpofes,  than  the  promifes  which  God  made  to  A- 
braham.     In  the  fulfilment  of  them,  fuch  a  fcene  of 
operations  and  events  would  neceflarily  take  place,  as 
muft  ftrike  the  minds  of  God's  people,  in  the  moR 
forcible  manner,  and  make  fuch  impreffions,  of  God's 
unchangeableTaithfulnefs,  in  executing  his  promifjs, 
as  could  hardly  be  erafed.     The  piomife,  rcfpe<?iing 
the  increafe  of  Abraham's  mmily — of  the  maintain- 
ance  of  a  church  in  it,  and  of  the  land  of  Canaan  fcr 
an  inheritance,  opened  a  fcene  of  fuch  wonderful  op- 
erations, as  would  aflbid  the  mofl  ample  coiiviclion 
and  experience,  on  the  fubjed  of  God's  faithfulnefs, 
in  fulfilling  promifes.     The  conviftion,  arifmg  from 
the  fulfilment  of  promifes,  through  lb  long  a  courfe  ot 
operations,  and  fuch  a  vaft  variety  of  events,  mufl 
bring  the  promifes  which  related  to  fcenes,  far  diftant 


29 

■and  iut.ure  nearby;  and  place  thctn  in  a  certain 
point  of  light. This  was;. in  facl:  the  ufe  and  im- 
provement, which  was  made  of  God's  faithfulnefs, 
in  executing  what,  he  had  promifed  to  Abraham. 
Hence,  Mofes  enumerates  to  the  Ifraehtes,  the  many 
things  God  had  done  for  them;  in  increafmg  and 
rendering  themi'o  numerous  —in  dehverin^  them  out 
of  the.  hand  of  Pharoah,  king  of  Egypt,  and-coa- 
ducling  them  through  the  wildeineO,  Sic.  ■  He  then, 
in  the  vi\o9c  explicit  manner,  teaches  them,  that  all 
thefe  things  were  done  in  fulfilment  of  the  oath, 
which  God  had  fworn  to  thdr  fathers.  **  Know 
therefore  (fays  he)  that  the  Lord, thy  God  he  is  God, 
the  faithful  Gotf,  which  kccpcth  covenant  arid  mercy 
with  thtm  that  \qyq  him  and  keep  his  commandments, 
to  a  ihoufand  generations  J'  "(Deut.  vii.  7 — 9.)  It  is 
obfervable,.- that  Mofes  teaches  the  Ifraelites,  that 
this  is  the  very  ufe  they  were  to  make  of  the  difpen- 
fations  of  God,  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  promife-  he 
made  to  Abraham,  viz.  ro  imprefs  dn  their  minds  a 
fenfe  of  the  iaithfulnefs  of  God,  in  fuUiliiig  his  promi- 
fes,even  thofc  which  related  to  the  mofi  difrant  period. 
From  the:  precceding  obfervations  it  becomes  evi- 
dent,^ that  there  were  peculiar  reafons  for  the  promif- 
es  which  God  made  to  Abrah?.m,  at  the  time  he  en- 
tered upon  the  difpenfation  of  the  covenant  to  him  ; 
which  mviii  neceilarily  operate  till  the  appearance  of 
Chrift.  And  thofe  reafons  ceafe  to  exiil  under  the 
prefent  iVifpenfation.  The  gofpci  difpei^fation^  is  not' 
Ti  preparatory  difpenfation.  The  Savior  has  appeared, 
according  to  ancient  promifes  and  predictions. — Th^i 
way  is  now  prepared  for  extenfive  operation s-.' — It  is 
no  longer  necelTary,  that  the  Church  fliould  l)e  con- 
fined to  a  particular  nation  ;  and  confequently  un- 
ncceifary,  that  a  particular  country,  an  earthly  Cana- 
an  fhould  be  allotted   to  it. '1  he   Church  under 

the  prefent  difpenfation,  has  fuch  abundant  experi- 
ence, of  God's  faithfulnefs  in  acconiplifning  diiiant 
proliiifes,  and  thofc  attended  with  the  greateft  dilH- 


3^ 


culties,  as  to  need  none  of  thofe  promifes  for  fuch  an 

end. As  the  end  of  thofe  promifes  was  to  prepare 

the  way  for  the  coming  of  the  Meffiah,  and  fo  have 
anfwcred  their  defign,  they  have  ceafed.  This  is  cer- 
tain refpeding  the  promife  of  the  land  of  Canaan, 
:tnd  as  that  promife  Avas  in  fubordination  to  the  oth- 
er promife,  rerpecting  Abraham's  natural  feed,  fo 
there  IS  reafon  to  conclude,  that  the  other  is  alfo 
terminated. 

4.  That  the  promife  which  God  made  to  Abra- 
ham, of  maintaining  a  Church  in  his  family,  was  tem- 
porary and  local,  is  evident,  becaufe  the  promife,  as 
appears  from  fact,  has  ceafed  to  operate  ever  fmce  the 
gofpel  difpcnfation  was  introduced. 

Not  only  have  the  peculiar  reafons  for  the  prom- 
ife ceafed  to  operate,  but  the   promife  itfelf.     It  is 
doubtlefs,  true,  "  That  the  covenant  which   God  ef- 
tabhflied   with  the  father  of  the  faithful  (Abraham) 
made  provifion  for  gracious  qualifications  to  be  tranf. 
mittsd  from  parent  to  child"  &c.  that  is  to  his  natu- 
ral  poftcrity,  lo  far  as  was  requifite  to  the  fupport  of 
a  Church  m  it.     And,  this  was  the  fimple  condition 
ot  the  promife,  viz.  Abraham^s  fidelity.    From  hence, 
It  may  be  determined,  what  was  the  extent  and  de- 
iigned  duration  of  the  promife.     When  the  promife 
ceafed  to  operate  ;  that  is  when  God  aftually  ceafed 
to   impart   fuch  gracious  qualifications,  as  were  re- 
quifite to  uphold  a  Church  in  the  family,  or  amone: 
thc  pofterity  of  Abraham,  then  the  promife  termina- 
ted.   ^  It  will  avail  nothing  to  fay,  that  the  J^ws  fruf. 
trateci   the   promife,  by  their   unbelief;  for  if  the 
promife   fecured  a  Church    in  Abraham's  family,  it 
iecured  thole  <'  thofe  gracious  qualifications,"  whicli 
vyere  rcquifite  to  maintain  if,  through  theivhole  pe- 
nod  refpeded  in  the  promife.     If  there  were  not  a 
lecurity  of  gracious  qualifications,  there  was  no  fee u- 
nty  of  a  Church.     At  the  time  therefore  when  God 
€ei;!ed  fo  impart  fuch  influence,  or  when  he  gave  the 
Jews  over  to  unbelief,  the  promife  terminated  j  if  the 


promife  ever  had  any  important  meaning.  If  the 
promile  only  fecured  a  Church,  in  Abraham's  family, 
on  the  condition  of  there  being  a  fufficient  number  of 
believers  in  it,  but  contained  no  fecurity  o^ faith  to 
a  fufficient  number,  there  vv^ould  have  been  no  grea- 
ter fecurity  of  a  Church,  in  Abraham's  family,  than 
of  a  Church  among  the  pofterity  of  Ham.  .The 
promife  therefore  did  contain  a  fecurity  of  fuch  gra- 
cious qualifications  as  were  ncceflary  to  fupport  a 
Church,  through  the  whole  period  refpefted  in  the 
promife.  At  the  time,  then,  when  the  Jews  were 
given  up  to  fuch  unbelief,  as  that  a  Church  ceafed  to 
exift:  among  the  Jews,  and  they  were  rejeded  by  God, 
at  that  very  time,  the  promife  terminated.  And  this 
time  has  long  fince  arrived.  And  what  is  worthy  of 
particular  notice  is,  that  the  time  when  it  happened, 
was  the  very  time  when  the  Meiliah  appeared  ;  whefi' 
the  ancient  difpenfatiou  ceafed,  and  the  gofpel  dif- 
}>enfation  was  firft  introduced.  Ever  fince  that  timq, 
God  has  withhoiden  fuch  gracious  influences,  as  wer^? 
aecefiary,  to  fupport  a  Church  among  Abraham's 
natural  poflerity. — The  covenants  and  promifes  art 
removed  from  them :  and  they  are  given  over  to  coa- 
ilrmed  unbelief.  They  are  become  a  race  of  vaga^^ 
bonds  in  the  earth ;  and  there  remains  no  traces,  oJt 
their  ever  having  been  a  favourite  people.  They  are 
a  curie,  an  aftonifiiment  and  a  bye-word  among  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth. 

But  it  is  faid,  the  promife  under  confideration  i§ 
not  terminated  j  for,  although  it  does  not  operate  re- 
fpeding  Abraham's  natural  poflerity,  yet  it  is  trans- 
ferred to  Gentile  beHevers  and  their  natural  pofleri- 
ty— The  Gentile  Church  is  grafted  into  the  fame  o- 
live  tree,  &c.  On  which  it  may  be  obferved,  thati 
ought  to  be  remembered,  that  the  promife  under  con- 
.fideration  is  one,  which  refpe6ts  the  natural  poJUrity 
of  Abraham,  in  diftindion  from  other  pofterities.  If 
'■^  promife  of  like  import  be  made  to  Gentile  believ- 
CY5  and  their  poflerity,  it  cannot  appear  from  a  proiiv 


32 

ife  made  to  Abraham,  refpecling  his  pofterlty,  in  dil- 
tin^lion  from  others.  A  promife  of  like  import,  re- 
fpefting  believing  Gentiles  and  their  feed,  muft  be  a- 
nother  promife  and  appear,  if  it  appear  at  all,-  from 
fome  other  declaration  than  that,  which  was  made  to 
Abraham. 

Furthermore,  although  It  be  the  cafe,  that  the 
Gentile  Church  is  grafted  into  the  fame  flock  and 
partakes,  with  the  Jewifh  Church,  of  the  root  and 
fatnefs  of  the  olive-tree,  yet  it  cannot  be  inferred  from 
thence,  that  there  is  the  fame  promife,  refpefting  their 
natural  offspring,  as  there  was  refpeding  that  of  A- 
braham  ;  for  the  Gentile  Church  may  partake  of  the 
root  and  fatnefs  of  the  olive-tree,  or  of  the  great  and 
cifential  bleflings  of  that  covenant,  on  which  both  the 
Jewifh  and  Gentile  Churches  w«r€  founded,  without 
the  promife  under  confideration ;  which  promife  is 
but  an  appendage  of  that  covenant.  But  this  will 
be  more  particularly  confidered,  before  this  fection  is 
clofed.  * 

Should  it  be  further  faid,  as  an  objection  to  the 
extinftion  or  termination  of  the  promife  made  to  A- 
braham,  of  the  maintainance  of  a  Church  in  his  fam- 
ily, that,  although  the  promife  is,  at  prefent,  fufpen- 
ded  in  its  operation,  and  the  Jews,  Abraham's  natu- 
ral defcendants  are  in  a  ftate  of  rejection,  yet  they  will 
one  day  be  reflored,  and  the  promife  again  operate 
refpeding  them. 

The  anfwer  is,  that  although  the  calling  in  of  the 
Jews  is  a  certain  event,  yet  they  will  never  be  fo  cal- 
led in,  as  to  take  the  place,  in  which  they  were  put, 
by  this  promife.  This  promife  gave  them  a  pre-em- 
.intnce  over,  and  diitinguifhed  them  from  all  the  Gen- 
tile nations.  But  when  they  fhall  be  again  called  in- 
to a  Church-flate,  they  will  only  enjoy  a  place  in 
Chriil's  Church,  in  common  with  the  Gentiles  j— they 
will  be  only  fellow-heirs  with  them. 

Besides,  there  now  is  and  has  been  a  total  fufpen- 
fion  of  the  promife,  as  Abraham's  natural  feed  arc 


33 

rcfpected,  for  almofl  two  thoufand  years.  And  it 
makes  no  material  difference,  whether  thofe  two  thou- 
fand years  were  immediately  preceding  the  end  of 
time,  or  in  an  intermediate  fpace.  And,  if  the  prom- 
ife  may  be  fufpended  two  thoufand  years,  it  may  be 

forever  fufpended. The  promife  is,  at  prefent.  ex- 

tind  ;  and  it  will  never  be  revived,  fo  as  to  make  that 
diftin£tion  between  Abraham's  family  and  other  na- 
tions, which  it  was  originally  defigned  to  make,  and 
which  did  in  fad:  exiil,  antecedent  to  the  introdudion 

of  the  gofpel  difpenfation. It  is  evident,  therefore, 

from  fa6t,  that  the  promife  in  queftion  was  local  and 
temporary,  becaufe  it  has,  in  reality,  long  fmce  ceaf- 
€d  in  its  operation. 

5.  That  the  promife  made  to  Abraham,  of  the 
maintainance  of  a  Church  in  his  family,  was  tempo- 
rary and  a  peculiarity  of  preceding  difpenfations,  fur- 
ther appears,  from  the  ancient  prophecies,  and  the 
declarations  made  in  the  gofpel,  importing  that  the 
Gentiles,  at  large  are  introduced,  under  the  gofpel 
difpenfation,  into  the  fame  place,  refpeding  the 
Church,  in  which  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham  were 
placed,  by  the  promife  in  queftion. 

Should  this  appear  to  be  really  the  cafe,  it  would 
unqueftionably  follow,  that  the  promife,  now  under 
confideration,  was  temporary,  and  a  peculiarity  of 
former  difpenfations.  It  is  faid,  that  this  promife  is 
transferred  over  to  Gentile  believers  and  their  feed  ; 
but  there  is  no  intimation  of  it  in  the  promife,  as 
made  to  Abraham,  more  than  of  a  transfer  of  the 
promife  of  the  earthly  Canaan.  Gentile  believers  have 
an  undoubted  title  to  all  the  effential  bleffings  of  the 
covenant ;  but  they  certainly  have  not  to  every  ex- 
tra-promife,  which  was  made  to  Abraham. 

That  the  promife  now  under  confideration  was 

peculiar  to  the  former  difpenfation,  and  that  nothing 

fimilar  to  it  now  exifts  is  evident,  as  all  the  promifes 

relative  to  a  Church,  do  now  refpe^  the  Gentiles,  at 

E 


34 

large :  and  not  Gentile  believers  and  their  offspring, 
in  particular.  There  is,  at  this  time,  full  and  ample 
fecurity  of  a  Church,  in  a  promife  made  to  Chrifl:, 
by  the  Father,  and  in  a  promife  made  to  the  Church 
by  Chrift.  And  there  are  promifes  and  declarations, 
that  the  Church  fhall  be  fupplied  from  the  Gentile 
world,  as  it  formerly  had  been,  from  the  poflerity  of 
Abraham.  Thefe  obfervations  are  evident,  from  ma- 
ny things  contained  in  the  prophecies.  In  the  fol- 
lowing pafTages,  the  Gentiles  at  large  are  contrafted 
to  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham,  where  the  Church 
in  2;ofpel  times  is  refpefted.  "  Behold  my  fervant 
ivhom  I  uphold,  mine  ele6i  in  -whom  my  foul  delighteth  ; 
I  have  put  my  fpirit  upon  him,  he  Jhall  bring  forth  judg- 
7nent  unto  the  Gentiles."  Ifaiah,  xlii.  i.  And  verfe 
6,  '*  /  the  Lord  have  called  thee  in  righteoufnefs  and 
will  hold  thine  hand,  and  will  keep  thee  ;  and  give  thee 
for  a  covenant  of  the  people,  for  a  light  to  the  Gentiles.*' 
And  chap.  xlix.  6.  ••'  //  is  a  light  thing,  that  thoujhould- 
eft  be  my  fervant,  to  raife  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob,  and 
io  refiore  the  prefervcd  o/'Hrael ;  /  will  alfo  give  thee 
for  a  light  to  the  Gentiles,  that  thou  mayefi  be  my  fal- 
vation  to  the  end  of  the  earth." 

In  the  fucceeding  part  of  the  fame  chapter,  the. 
Church  is  reprefented,  as  being  in  a  very  low  and  dif- 
confolateflate,  on  account  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews. 
More  efpecially,  becaufe  the  Jews  had  been  the  nation, 
from  which  fhe  has  always  expected  a  fuccelTion  of 
members.  The  Church  is  reprefented,  as  complain- 
ing in  all  the  bitternefs  of  a  tender  mother,  when  de- 
prived of  her  children.  "  The  Lord  hathforfaken  me 
and  my  Lord  hath  forgditen  ?;.'?."  The  prophet  then^ 
aduiiniRers  comfort  to  her,  by  alluring  her,  that  fhe- 
fliould  be  abund'.mtly  fupplied  from  the  Gentile  world, 
as  ilie  had  been,  antecedently,  from  the  natural  feed; 
of  Abraham.  Verfe  22»  "  'Thus  faith  the  Lord  God^ 
Behold  I, -will  lift  up  7ny  hand  to  the  Gentiles,  and  ft 
my ^ftandard  to  the  people,  a^id  they  Jhall  bring  thyfons 
in  their  arms  and  thy  daughters  Jhall  be  carried  upon 


35 

their  JJjoulders.'*  Verfe  23.  Kings  JJj all  be  thy  nurf- 
iug  father s^^c. 

In  chapter,  liv.  3,  the  prophet,  after  callmg  upon 
the  Church  to  rejoice,  fays,  "  Fcr  thouJhaJt  break  forth 
m  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left,  and  thy  feed  jhall  in- 
herit the  Gentiles,  and  make  the  defolate  cities  to  be  in- 
habited.** Here  it  is  obfervable,  that  the  Gentiles  at 
large  are  fpoken  of,  as  that  body  of  people,  to  which 
the  Church  fliould  look.  Not  to  Gentile  believers 
and  their  natural  feed,  in  particular.-^— Hence  the 
prophet,  chap.  Ixv.  i,  and  onward,  when  fpeaking  of 
the  calUng  in  of  the  Gentiles  and  reje£l:ion  of  the 
Jews,  calls  the  latter,  the  Jews,  "  A  rebellious  people 
which  walketh  in  a  ivay  which  is  not  good,*' — ^The  Gen- 
tiles are  defcribed  as  -^pcople^  not  as  the  natural  feed 
of  believers.  "  1  am  fought  of  them  that  afked  not  for 
me  ;  /  am  found  of  them  thai  fought  me  not.  Ifaid^ 
behold  me,  behold  me  unto  a  nation  that  was  not  called 
by  my  name.'*  Thefe  paffages  moft  evidently  teach, 
that  after  the  rejeclion  of  the  natural  feed  'of  Abra-^ 
ham,  the  Gentiles  at  large  are  to  be  confidered,  as 
the  body  from  which  the  Church  lliould  coiled  itg 
members ;  as  fhe  had  antecedently  colie(B:ed  them 
from  the  Jews.  Many  other  pafl'ages,  in  the  proph- 
ets, teach  the  fame  truth,  which  it  is  unneGefTary  par- 
ticularly to  mention..  ^  ..'.•  .."j'?i 

I-N  the  New  Teftament,  there  are  the  fame fejsre* 
fentations.  As  in  Afts  xiii.  46,  when  the  Jews,  en- 
raged with  malice  and  envy,  fpake  againft  the  pfeichr 
ing  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  it  is  faid,  "  Then  Paul  and 
Barnabas  waxed  bold  and  faid,  it  was  neceflary,  thqt 
the  word  of  God  (liould  firft  have  been  fpoken  unto 
you,  but  feeing  ye  put  it  from  you,  and  judge  your- 
ielves  unworthy  of  everlafling  life,  Lo,  lue  turn  to  the 
Gentiles.'*  Here  the  Gemiies  colleftively  are  men- 
tioned, as  the  people  which,  in  future,  fhould  be  re- 
garded by  God,  in  his  difpenfations,  as  the  Jews,  A- 
braham's  natural  oifspring  had  been  regarded,  in  time 
part. 


Our  Savior,  in  feveral  parables,  foretold  the  re^ 
jeftion  of  the  Jews;  and,  that  the  Gentiles  at  large, 
or  colleftively,  fhould  fucceed  them,  as  the  people, 
from  which  the  Church  fhould  be  fupplied  with  mem- 
bers. This  is  obfervable  in  the  parables  of  the  few- 
er— of  the  hufbandrean,  &c. 

The  apoftles,  with  great  conflancy,  inculcated  the 
feme  idea.  Peter,  when  fent  for  by  Cornelius  the 
Gentile,  after  hearing  the  things  which  God  had  done 
for  him,  faid,  ^^  Of  a  truth  I  perceive^  that  God  is  no 
refpe£l:er  of  perfons,  but  in  every  nation, /><?  thatfear^ 
€th  him  and  luorketh  rightcQufnefs  is  accepted  of  him.** 
The  truth  which  the  apoftle,  in  thefe  words,  declared 
that  he  perceived,  was,  that  the  antient  diftindion, 
between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  was  totally  abolifhed. 
That  the  Gentiles  were  introduced  into  the  fame 
(landing  with  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham.  Accord- 
ingly, all  the  epiftles  abound  with  the  fame  reprefen- 
tations.  There  is  no  di^QxencQ  between  the  ]ew  and 
the  Greek  ;  for  the  fame  Lord  over  all  is  rich  unto  all, 
that  call  upon  him.  Rom,  x.  12,13.  *'  There  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,"  &c. 

From  thefe  paffages  and  many  other  of  the  fame 
import,  it  is  evident,  that  the  Gentiles,  confidered 
coileftivcly,  are  introduced  into  the  fame  {landing 
with  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham. — That  the  Church, 
in  future  was  to  befupported  from  the  Gentile  world, 
as  it  had  been  antecedently,  from  the  natural  feed  of 
Abraham,  There  is  now  the  fame  promife,  in  kind, 
refpeding  the  Gentile  world,  as  there  had  been,  le- 
fpedling  Abraham's  poflerity. 

On  the  whole,  from  the  various  obfervations  which 
have  been  made,  I  truft,  the  conclufion,  that  the  prom- 
ife which  God  made  to  Abraham,  of  the  maintain- 
^nce  of  a  Church  among  his  natural  feed,  was  tem- 
porary and  local,  is  fully  fupported.  It  appears  to 
be  a  promife  which  was  peculiar  to  former  difpenfa- 
tions.— It  appears  from  the  nature  of  the  promife, 
if  God  ^rer  meant  to  extend  his  Church  to  other  na- 


37 

lions  ;  for  that  promife,  as  has  juftly  been  innfled 
on,  did  refped  Abraham's  natural  feed,  in  diftindion 
from  others. — The  promife  is  ranked  among  prom- 
ifes  which,  without  exception,  were  temporary,  and 
confined  to  preceding  difpenfations. The  prom- 
ife did  ceafe  to  operate,  at  the  very  time,  when  the 
former  difpenfatioii  ceafed  zz^d  the  prefent  difpenfa- 
tion  v/as  int?oduced.  The  Jewq  are  wholly  rejected 
by  God,  and  the  Gentile:^  arj  irtroduced,  as  the  peo- 
ple, which  God  now  refpedls,  in  rll  his  difpenfations 

relative  to  his  Church.- Finally  ;  it  appears,  both 

from  the  Old  and  New  Teftamci^tSi  that  the  Gentiles 
at  large,  inflead  of  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham,  is 
the  body  out  of  wliich  the  Church  is  to  be  fupplied 
with  members,  under  the  prefent  difpenfation,  as  it 
had  been  formerly,  from  the  oLspring  of  Abraham. 

It  is  ncceflary  to  make  one  more  obfervation,  con- 
cerning the  promife  in  queftion,  that  it  may  appear  in 
its  proper  point  of  light. —viz. 

5.  That  it  was  a  iypka.1  promife. 

When  God  made  the  promife  to  Abraham,  which 
we  are  now  confidering,  it  was  in  an  early  age  of  the 
world,  and  the  Church  was  in  its  infancy.  Very  few 
things  had  been  revealed.  Therefore,  God  adapted 
that  difpenfation,  to  the  time  and  age  in  which  it  was 
to  operate.  He  dealt  abundantly  in  types  Tind figures. 
He  pre-figured  and  fliadowed  forth  heavenly  things, 
by  thofe  which  were  temporal  and  earthly,  as  being 
the  moll  familiar.  There  were  "  Meats  and  drinks^ 
divers  ivapifigs  and  carnal  ordinances  impofed^  until 
the  time  of  reformation.**  That  is,  until  the  gofpel 
day  fhould  arrive.  The  whole  law  was  confidered, 
but  as  a  '•'■fhadow  of  good  things  to  come**  Accor- 
dingly, almoft  every  thing  which  took  place,  or  was 
ordained  was  typical.  And  there  is  fpecial  reafon  to 
conclude,  that  the  difpenfations  of  God,  concerning 
Abraham's  natural  poflerity,  were  fuch.  It  is  cer- 
tain, that  the  good  land  of  Canaan  was  typical  of 
heaven.     And  God's  diflinguifliing  the  natural  pof- 


terity  of  Abraham,  In  the  manner  he  did,  was,  in 
■conformity  to  the  genius  of  that  difpenfation,  a  typic- 
al  tranfadion.  Abraham  and  his  natural  feed,  were 
a  fit  type  of  Chrift  and  his  fpiritual  feed.  And  their 
having  a  fecurity  of  Canaan,  as  an  inheritance,  was 
a  fit  type  and  emblem  of"  that  glory  and  happmefs  m 
heaven,  which  is  fecured  to  the  Church,  or  Chrift's 
fpiritual  feed. It  is  evident,    •  ,      j    r 

1.  That  Abraham  was  confidered  as  the  head  or 
his  natural  pofterity,  as  Chrift  is  of  believers. 

2.  It  is  alfo  a  manifefl  truth,  that  all  the  promifes 
which  were  made  refpeding  Abraham's  natural 
pofterity,  were  made  to  Abraham  ;  and  as  a  reward 
of  his  faithfulnefs  ;  as  the  promifes  refpeding  believ- 
ers are  made  in  Chrift,  and  out  of  refped  to  his  ii- 
delity. 

That  all  the  promifes  were  made  to  Abranam, 
.which  refpea  his  natural  feed  is  evident,  as  their  ac^ 
compiifliment  is  always  mentioned  in  facred  writ,  as 
a  fulfilment  of  the  promife  which  God  made,  and  ot 
the  oath  which  he  fwcre  unto  Abraham. 

3.  The  land  of  Canaan  was  confidered  as   a  type 

of  heaven,  -at, 

4.  That  the  particular  promifes,  refpefti ng  Abra- 
ham's natural  offspring  were  typical  is  evident,  froni 
their  being  now  done  away  and  removed  far  out  of 
fulit,  as  other  typical  nanfadibns  are. 

"Of  this  nature  there  is  fomething  very  remarka- 
ble, refpeding  all  the  tranfadions  which  related  to 
Abraham's  natural  offspring.  Since  Chrift,  who 
was  ihe/ub/rarice  of  all  the  antient  types  is  come, 
there  is  a  total  filence,  refpeding  all  thofe  tranfac- 
tions.  Nothing  is  faid  concerning  Canaan.  There 
are  no  peculiar  gracious  lilpenfations,  towards  the 
natural  pofterity  of  Abraham.  The  covenants  and 
the  cromies  are  no  longer  difpenfed  to  them.  That 
people  are,  as  it  were  annihilated.  They  are  t^ken 
behind  the  curtain,  and  removed  out  of  fight.  They 
are  treated  in  fuch  a  manner  as  may  well   put  man- 


39 

kind  out  of  all  danger  of  deception,  from  their  ha- 
ving once  been  a  favourite  nation. — They  exift  no 
longer  as  a,  nation  ;  but  are  become  a  curfe  in  the 
earth. — They  are  laid  afide,  like  a  garment  which  is 
of  no  further  ufe. — There  are  no  remaining  traces, 
of  their  being  a  favourite  nation.  The  tender  of 
bleffings  is  no  longer  made  to  the  Jews,  in  diflinc- 
tion  from  other  nations.  Being  natural  defcendants 
from  Abraham  or  any  other  believer,  is  no  longer 
held  out,  as  a  condition  of  falvation  ;  but  faith  in 
Chrifl  is  proclaimed,  as  the  lowed  condition  of  fa- 
vour. And,  Canaan  is  no  more  prosnifed  and  exhib- 
ited as  the  reward  of  piety,  but  heaven  itfelf  is  ten- 
dered, as  the  great  good  which  believers  may  exped. 
There  is,  as  appears  from  thefe  obfervations,  rea- 
fon  to  believe,  that  the  promiles  of  God,  which  ref- 
pefted  Abraham's  natural  offspring  were  univerfalty 
typical.  This  was  the  cafe  with  all,  excepting  the 
promife  under  confideration  ;  and  the  reafons  which 
have  been  offered,  I  truft,  are  fufficient  to  convince 
an  unbialfed  mind,  that  it  was,  alfo,  the  cafe  in  that 
particular.  If  fo  there  is  additional  reafon  to  con- 
clude, that  it  was  a  temporary  promife,  and  limited 
by  former  difpenfations. 

1  HAVE  nov.-  finiflied  the  obfervations,  which  I  de- 
iigned  to  make,  on  the  promifesmade  to  Abrahainj 
i^nd  particularly,  on  the  promife  which  refpecVs  th<? 
lupport  and  maintainance  of  a  church  in  his  family  j 
on  which  fo  great  a  ftrefs  has  been  laid.  And  if  the 
obfervations  whicti  have  been  made  are  juft,  it  will 
appear, 

I.  That  the  promife  which  God  made  to  Abra- 
ham, never  contained  any  fecurity  of  faith  and  holi- 
nefs  to  all  Abraham's  natural  oifspring. 

The  promife  fecured  the  maintainance  of  a  church 
among  that  poflerity  ;  but  it  was  never  defigned  to 
extend  the  church  to  every  individual,  on  any  con- 
'dition  whatever.  There  was  no  fecurity  of  the  faith 
and  holinefs  of  aJl  Abraham's  pofterity,   any   more 


40 

than  there  was  a  fecurity  of  the  faith  and  holinefs  of 
every  individual  of  the  human  race,  in  the  promife 
made  to  Chrift,  that  he  (hould  "  fee  his  feed."  The 
promife  made  to  Chrift  of  a  feed  refpefted  men,  in 
the  fame  fenfe,  that  the  promife  of  a  church  to  Abra- 
ham, refpe£led  his  natural  pofterity. 

2.  It  will  appear,  from  the  obfervations.  which 
have  been  made,  that  circumcifion  had  but  a  circum- 
ftantial  refped:  to  the  promife  which  God  made  to 
Abraham,  of  maintaining  a  church  in  his  family. 

The  promife  itfelf  was  but  a  circumftantial  promife 
—Was  but  an  appendage  of  the  covenant,  under  that 
difpenfation  ;  and  was  a  peculiarity  of  it.  So  far  as 
circumcifion  refpe£ted  it,  it  was  but  a  circumftantial 
rcfpe£l ;  as  much  fo,  as  the  refpeft  which  was  had 
in  that  ordinance,  to  the  promife  of  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan. There  virould  be  as  great  a  propriety  in  form- 
ing a  fyftem  of  fentinients,  on  the  promife  of  an 
earthly  Canaan  as  on  the  promife  which  God  made 
Abraham,  refpefting  the  maintainance  of  a  church, 
among  his  natural  offspring. 

3.  From  the  foregoing  obfervations  it  appears, 
that  the  fuppofition,  of  a  promife  now  made  to  believ- 
ers, of  the  fame  import  with  the  promife  made  to  A- 
braham,  of  maintaining  a  church  in  his  family,  muft 
proceed  from  miftaken  views  of  the  covenant,  God 
did  make  with  him. 

On  fuch  a  fuppofition,  the  fcheme  of  baptifm, 
which  is  oppofed  to  that  contained  in  my  inquiry,  is 
founded.  But  it  appears,  from  the  obfervations 
which  have  been  made,  that  the  reafons,  for  the  ex- 
iftence  of  fuch  a  promife,  were  peculiar  to  preceed- 
ing  difpenfations.  That  the  promife  itfelf  is  abolilh- 
ed,  as  Abraham's  natural  feed  was  refpefted — That 
the  promifes,  of  fupporting  and  maintaining  a  church, 
do  now  refped  the  Gentiles  at  large,  as  they  formerly 
did  the  Jews;  and  not  Gentile  believers  and  their 
feed. 

4.  From  the  foregoing  obfervations  it  appears  that. 


4Jf 

beiiig  refpecledin  the  fenfe  in  which  Abraham's  natu- 
ral feed  were  refpecled,  in  the  promife  which  God 
made  to  Abraham,  is  no  diftinguilhing  charafteriflic 
of  the  truefeed^  which  (hall  inherit  the  ejfeniial  blelTmgs 
of  the  covenant  of  grace. 

Much  is  faid  in  favour  of  Abraham's  natural  itt^ 
being  t  be  feed  refpeBed  in  the  covenant.  It  is  abun- 
dantly infifted  on,  tjiat  Abraham's  natural  feed  VA-ere 
the  feed  refpeded  in  the  covenant,  which  God  made 
with  Abraham,  becaufe  they  were  refpefted  in  the 
promife  which  God  made  to  Abraham,  of  fupporting 
a  church  in  his  family.  It  is,  however,  acknowledg- 
ed, at  the  fame  time,  that  "  being  children  of  the 
flefli  did  not  mark  them  as  the  feed  to  whom  the  Lord 
would  be  a  God."  p.  i6.  And  this  conceflion  fhows, 
that  being  one  of  Abraham's  natural  offspring,  was 
no  defcription,  or  character] ftic  of  the  true  feed. 
How  were  the  natural  otTspring  of  Abraham  refpec- 
ted,  as  the  feed  ?  They  were  the  body  out  which 
the  feed  was  to  be  collected  ;  juft  as  the  Gentiles  are 
the  body,  out  of  which  the  church  is  now  to  be  col- 
led^d  ;  or  as  mankind  are  the  body,  out  of  which 
Chrift's  feed  is  to  be  colle(^ed.  Would  it  be  any 
difcriminating  mark  of  the  feed,  which  fhall  inherit 
eternal  life,  to  fay,  that  Gentiles  are  the  io-O-d^  ?  Or 
would  it  defcribe  Chrifl's  feed,  to  fay  they  are  men  ^ 
It  would  be  juft  fuch  a  defcription  of  the  {tt^^  in 
thofe  cafes,  as  is  given  of  them,  when  it  is  faid,  that 
Abraham's  natural  feed  are  refpedted  as  the  feed. 
*'  It  is,  on  all  hands,  conceded  that  there  is  no  prom- 
ife that  the  Lord  will  be  a  God  to  any  but  believ- 
ers." p.  15.  If  God  will  not  be  the  God  of  any  but 
believers,  not  the  God  of  one  of  Abraham's  offs- 
pring, unlefs  a  believer,  then  believing  is  the  diflin- 
guifliing  characteriftic  of  the  feed,  Saying  that  A- 
braham's  natural  offspring  were  the  feed  refpeded^ 
gives  no  defcription  of  the  feed,  really  refpe&ed  in 
thecovenant,anv  more  than  faving  that  ;7i(f?2  are  the 


42 

feed  refpefted,  which  was  given  to  Chrift.  However 
important  fuch  cxpreffions  may  have  been  thought 
to  be  ;  they  convey  no  ideas,  which  lead  to  a  difcrim- 
ination  of  the  true  feed,  in  any  fenfe,  which  concerns 
the  prefent  inquiry. 

Other  remarks  and  ufes  will  be  made  of  the  pre- 
ceding obfervations,  in  the  fequel ;  which  are  not 
neceffary  to  mention  in  this  place. 


SECTION     IV. 

The  Ahraham'ic   covenant  further  confidercd,  with  a 

view  to   determining,   whether  Abraham^ s  natural 

feed  were  the  feed  refpeded  in  the  covenant,  in  any 

Juch  fenfe,  as  is  inconfijieni  with  the  Jcheme  advanced 

imny  Inquiry. 

IN  my  former  inquiry  it  is  alTerted,  that  the  natural 
feed  of  Abraham,  fimply  as  fuch,  were  not  the 
feed  refpeded  in  the  covenant,  and  fo  were  not  cir- 
cumcifed,  as  being  in  covenant.  If  the  natural  feed 
of  Abraham,  as  fuch,  were  not  the  feed,  it  is  evident 
they  could  not  be  circumcifed  as  the  feed,  merely  on 
that  confidcration  ;  for  the  ordinance,  in  that  view 
of  it,  would  imply  a  falfhood.  But  it  is  fmce  infift- 
ed  on,  that  Abraham's  natural  feed  were  fo  ref peeled 
in  the  covenant,  as  that  they  were  to  be  confidered 
and  circumcifed  as  the  feed.  But  how  refpeded  2iS 
the  feed  ?  Not  as  being  fuch,  fimply  on  account  of 
their  being  children  of  the  flefh  ;  for  that  miarked  no 
one  as  the  feed.  p.  i6.  If  the  natural  feed  of  Abra- 
ham were  refpefted  as  the  feed,  in  the  fenfe  in  which 
it  is  pretended  they  were  ;  that  is,  in  fuch  a  fenfe  as 
that  it  did  not  mark  any  one  "  as  the  feed  to  whom  the 
Lord  would  be  a  God,"  it  muft  be  a  perfeftly  imma- 
terialconnderation,  as  to  determining  the  inquiry  re- 
fa'tive  to  the  true  feed.  If  they  were  refpe6led  as  the 
feed,  yet,  being  natural  defcendants   from  Abraham- 


43 

did  not  conftitute  them  the  feed,  they  were  refpeded 
in  io  remote  a  fenfe,  as  could  lay  no  foundation  for 
being  circumcifed,  as  the  real  feed,  which  is  intitled 
to  the  promifes. 

There  are  two  paflages  contained,  in  the  account 
given  of  the  tranfaclions  betwixt  God  and  Abraham, 
which  it  is  fuppofed  do  clearly  teach,  that  Abraham's 
natural  feed  were  refpe(fled  and  included  in  the  cove- 
nant ;  and  that  they  were  circumcifed  as  fuch.  This 
is  evident  it  is  faid,  from  thofe  exprellions  in 
Gen.  xvii.  ii,  where  God  fays,  "This  is  my  cove- 
nant which  ye  ihall  keep,  between  me  2ind  you'*  Cp^^^' 
ralj  not  me  and  thee  ;  and  my  covenant  Ihall  be  in 
your  (plural )  flefh  for  an  everlafting  covenant.  This 
meant  the  flefli,  both  of  Abraham  and  of  the  circum.- 
cifed  man-child,"  p.  27.  To  which  it  may  be  re- 
plied, that  if  the  pronouns  jyo//  and  your  were  defigned, 
to  comprehend  Abraham  and  the  circumcifed  man- 
child,  it  will  follow  that  the  child  was  in  covenant  in 
^he  fame  fenfe  in  which  Abraham  was  ;  for  there  -is 
no  difcriminacion  made.  On  this  hypothecs,  there- 
fore, the  natural  oifspring  of  Abraham  were  to  be 
viewed  and  circumcifed,  in  token  of  the  fame  title  to 
the  blefTmgs  of  the  covenant,  which  Abraham  had. 
Yet  this  would  by  no  means  accord  with  what  is  faid 
p.  108.  That  no  promifes  were  fealed  to  the  child. 
And  that  baptifm  in  infancy  gives  us  no  '''more 
right,  when  we  come  to  adult  age,  to  be  confidered 
received  and  treated  as  chriitians  ;  and,  as  being  our- 
felves  in  covenant  with  Gcd,  than  if  wc  hsd  never 
been  baptized." 

Again  ;  it  may  be  furtlier  anfwered  ;  that  al- 
though the  pronouns  J(5k  and  v<?^/r  are  plural,  yet  ir. 
cannot  be  inferred  from  thence,  that  there  was  any 
reference  had  to  the  circumcifed  child,  in  tliofe  ex- 
prefhons.  It  was  necelfary,  for  other  reafons,  that 
thofe  pronouns  fhould  be  in  the  plural  number. — That 
right  conceptions  may  be  obtained,  of  the  text  in 
queilion,   it  will  be  neceiVary  to  look  back  as  far  aa 


44 

verfe  9.  Where  Gcd  fays  to  Abraham,  *'  Thou  (halt 
keep  my  covenant,  therefore,  thou  and  thy  feed  nji'sr  thee^ 
in  their  generations."  Ilere,  it  is  to  be  confidered,  God 
is  introducing  a  new  inftitution;  and  is  teaching  A- 
braham,  the  peculiar  defign  of  it.  In  the  full  place, 
he  informs  Abraham,  that  it  was  not  defign^d  merely 
for  him  ;  but  that  it  was  alfo  defigned  to  extend  to 
his  feed,  in  their  generations.  That  is,  hh/uu-ej/hrs, 
as  they  came  upon  the  ftage,  mult  alio  confcirin  to 
the  fame  inflitution.  Haring  enjoined  it  on  Abra- 
ham and  his  feed,  or  fucceflbrs,  in  their  generations, 
to  keep  covenant,  God  proceeds  to  inform  Abraham, 
what  he  and  his  feed,  in  their  generations,  muft  do, 
that  they  may  keep  covenant,  verfe  10.  *' This  h 
my  covenant  which  ye  (i.  e.  you  and  yonv  feed  in 
their  generations)  ihail  keep,  between  me  and  you, 
eviry  man-child  among  you  J).- all  be  circumnftd.'^  The 
thing  required  to  keeping  covenant,  or  which  com- 
prehended the  whole,  confided,  in  ciicamciiing  them- 
felves  and  their  male-children.  It  is  very  evident, 
from  this  verfe,  that  the  adult,  and  not  the  infant  feed 
of  inbraham,  are  meant  by  the  term  feed ;  becaufe, 
in  keeping  covenant,  is  comprehended,  the  circum- 
cifion  of  male-children.  The  feed,  as  well  as  Abra- 
ham himfelf,  are  fuppofed,  capable  of  having  male- 
children  to  circumcife.  So  that  by  Abraham  and  his 
feed,  is  meant,  Abraham  and  his  adidt,  belieiung  feed 
•— Thofe,  who  are  capable  of  actually  complying  with 
fuch  an  inflitution.  To  their  keeping  covenant,  it 
was  neceifary  for  them  to  circumcife  their  male-chil- 
dren ;  which  could  not  be  applicable  to  infants. 

God  having  informed  Abraham,  what  he  and  his  a- 
dult  or  beheving  feed  m.uft  do,  to  keep  covenant,  viz. 
circumcife  every  man-child.  He  then  teaches  Abra- 
ham the  meaning  of  it.  Verfe  11.  "  And  ye  ihall 
circumcife  the  fiefh  of  your  foreflvin  ;  and  it  fhall  be 
a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.**  That 
is  betwixt  God,  Abraham  and  his  adult,  believiui^ 
pffspring,  in  their  generations.    Not  a  token  of  thc^ 


45 

i^ovenant  between  God,  Abiaiiarn  and  liis  circumci- 
fcd  child ;  for  nothing  had  been  faid  rclpeding  chil- 
dren, except  with  a  view  to  informing  Abraham,  that 
it  was  necciTary  for  him  and  his  adult  beheving  otf- 
fpring,  in  their  generations,  to  circumcife  fuch  chil- 
dren, to  their  keeping  God's  covenant. 

It  is  evident,  from  the  connexion  there  is,  between 
ihe  objected  text  and  the  preceding  words,  that  the 
plural  pronouns  you  and  your  were  neceflary,  although 
there  was  no  refpect,  to  the  circumcifed  child  in  them. 
If  notliing  more  were  meant, than  to  teach  the' obliga- 
tions on  adults,  refpefting  circumcifion,  and  its  import 
or  meaning  refpecling  themfelves,  the  plural  pronouns 
would  be  necciikry.  Abraham  and  his  feed  were  the 
peribns,  unifonniy  refpecled  in  the  preceding  words. 
Abraham's  adult  and  believing  feed  were  meant  by 
ilie  feed,  in  their  generations  :  becaufe  the  injunQion 
to  circumcife  is  laid  on  them.  They  are  fuppofed 
capable  of  an  active  compliance  with  the  command  ; 
and,  it  is  fuppofed,  they  may  have  male-children  to 
circumcife-  When  it  is  faid,  that  this  "  Ihall  be  a  to- 
ken of  the  covenant  between  me  and  you^^  it  means, 
between  God,  Abraham  and  his  adult  believing  ieed, 
who  m;ty  and  do  comply  with  the  inititution,  by  cir- 
cumcifmg  themfelves  and  their  male-children.— The 
pbjeded  text,  therefore,  initead  of  oppofmg  the  idea, 
held  forth  in  my  inquiry,  is  a  direct  fupport  of  it ; 
viz.  that  the  circumcifion  of  infants  was  not  defjgncd, 
as  a  token  that  the  infant  was  in  covenant;  but,  as  a 
token  that  the  parent,  who  alone  was  aciive  did  keep 
covenant  with  God. 

I'l-iE  other  paffage,  contained  in  the  account  given 
ol  the  tranfactions  between  God  and  Abraham,  at  the 
time  when  circumcifion  was  inftituted,  is  in  v.  140! 
Gen.  17th  ehap.  "  And  the  uncircumciled  man-childg. 
whofe  flefli  of  his  forefkin  is  not  circumcifed,  that  foul 
If:  all  be  cut  off  from  his  people.  He  hath  broken  my  co- 
venant,''^ It  is  alferted,  that  the  uncircumcifed  man- 
child  is  meant,  by  the  foul  which  Ihall  be  cut  off  from 


46 

his  people  ;  and  by  him  who  has  broken  the  cove- 
nant. "  There  is  nothing  here  faid  about  the  parent.** 
p.  28.  But  it  appears,  on  the  contrary,  fiom  the  obr 
lervations  which  have  been  made,  that  the  whole  pre- 
ceding addrefs  was  made,  direclly  to  parents  ;  and, 
no  mention  had  been  made  of  children,  except  as  he- 
ingfubje6ls  of  circumcifion  ;  and  that  as  a  fulfilment 
of  the  parent's  covenant  obligations.  As  God  had 
been  revealing  the  duty  of  jO/yr^/z^j,  in  their  fucceflive 
generations,  to  circumcife  their  children,  as  a  token 
of  their  keeping  covenant,  it  would  be  an  extraordi- 
nary mode  of  arguing  to  infer,  from  thence,  that,  if 
the  circumcifion  of  a  child  fliould  be  negle£led,  the 
child  would  break  covenant.  And,  the  declaration, 
whether  introduced  as  a  confequence  from  what  had 
been  faid,  or  for  any  other  reafon  would  be  very  ab- 
rupt and  unnatural. — On  the  contrary,  it  Vv-ould  be 
very  natural,  after  God  had  been  inculcating  on  A- 
braham  and  other  believing  parents,  in  their  fuccef- 
five  generations,  the  duty  of  circumcifmg  their  male 
children,  and  that  as  neceflary  to  their  keeping  cov- 
enant, to  addrefs  them  in  this  manner  ;  "  If  any  of 
you  do  negled:  or  omit  the  circumcifion  of  a  man- 
child,  that  foul  who  fhall  prefume  fo  to  negleft  his 
duty,  {ball  be  cut  off*  from  his  people,— he  has  broken 
my  covenant.'*  It  would  be  a  direft  inference  from 
what  had  preceded.  Thefe  confiderations  would 
naturally  lead  to  the  conclufion,  that  by  the  foul  which 
Jljould  be  cut  off,  he.  muft  be  meant  the  parent,  who 
fliould  neglect  the  circumcifion  of  a  male  child. 
yunius  and  Treniallius,  in  their  verfion  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  evidently  confider,  the  breach  of  covenant  as 
having  a  refpe^t  to  an  adult,  who  ffiould  neglcft  cir- 
cumcifion,* Mr.  Poole  is  decidedly  of  the  opinion, 
that  the  breach  of  covenant  does  refpecl  the  parent, 
who  fhould  negle<^  to  circumcife  a  male  child  ;  and 


*  PrxputiatnB  autem  mas,  (}ui  non  circumciderit  carnem  prsepii- 
til  fui,  uiique  exfciii<Jcretur  homo  illcc  populisfuis  ;  nam  irritus  fe- 
cit faediii  me  iim. 


47 

that  the  Hebrew  admits  of  fuch  a  verfion  of  the  text. 
His  words  are  as  follows.  "  And  the  uncircumcifed 
man-child ;  or  rather.  And  as  for  the  uncircumcifed 
man-child.  So  the  nomnative  is  put  abfolutely,  as 
is  frequent  in  the  Hebrew  tongue.  Whofe  flefjofhis 
forefkin  is  Jiot  circumcifcd  ;  or,  who  fliall  not  circum- 
cife  the  flefli  of  his  foreflvin  ;  for  the  Hebrew  verb 
may  be  rendered  actively,  which  feems  beft  here',  be- 
caufe  the  puniihment  feems  more  juflly  to  belong  to 
the  parent,  who  was  guilty  of  the  neglecl,than  to  the 
child  who  was  not  capable  of  this  precept,  and  there- 
fore, not  guilty  of  the  violation  of  it.*'  There  is, 
therefore  refpedablc  authority  to  fupport  fuch  a  ver- 
fion  of  the  text,  as  flialj  determine,  that  the  breach  of 
covenant  does  refpedl  the  parent,  who  fiiould  neglect 
the  circumcifion  of  a  male-child  ;  but  it  appears, 
from  what  has  been  faid,  that  no  other  verfion  of  it 
fo  naturally  agrees  with  the  tenour  of  the  preceding 
difcourfe.  The  words  would  then  be,  a  very  natural 
inference  from  what  had  been  previoufly  advanced- 
But  the  fuppofition,  that  the  breach  of  covenant  ref- 
pects  the  child,  is  a  conclufion,  which  can  be  collec- 
ted from  nothing  which  precedes,  and  not  only  lo 
but  mufl  be  introduced,  in  a  manner,  the  moft  ab- 
rupt and  unnatural. 

•  Besides,  the  opinion,  that  the  child  is  meant  as  the 
breaker  of  the  covenant,  is  abfurd  in  its  very  nature. 
The  infant  child  is  utterly  incapable  of  receiving  or 
executing  the  inj  unclion  of  circumcifion,  both  as  it 
refpefts  itfelf  or  another.  And,  to  fuppofe  that  the 
child  is  meant,  is  the  fame  as  to  fuppofe,  that  a  breach 
of  covenant  may  take  place  without  confent,  knowl- 
edge, or  a  fmgle  exercife.  It  is  a  very  fmgular  and 
unwarrantable  conception  of  forming  and  breaking 
■covenants,  to  fuppofe,  that  thofe  things  may  take 
place,  not  only  without  confent,  but  without  any  ex- 
ercife, or  even  knowledge  of  the  whole  tranfaclion. 
Blellings,  refpecliiig  one  individual,  may  be  fufpend- 
cd  on  the  conduct  of  another,  without  his  knowledge 


48 

or  confent  ;  but  to  call  this  entering  into  and  break- 
ing covenant,  as  it  refpefts  him  who  has  no  confent 
or  knowledge  of  the  tranfa6lion,  is  a  fingular  concep- 
tion of  covenants. 

Besides  ;  the  fuppofition  is  utterly  inconfiftent 
with  other  things  which  are  advanced,  refpeding 
the  children  of  believers.  Being  cut  off  from  his 
people  it  is  faid  implies  being  "  feparated  from  the 
people  of  God,  excluded  from  the  privilege  of  eating 
the  paffover,'*  he.  p.  30.  This  is  to  fuppofe  fome- 
thing  to  which,  as  is  acknowledged,  the  child  would 
have  had  no  right  had  it  been  circumcifed  ;  for  p. 
107,  it  is  faid,  "  That  nothing  which  is  found  in 
the  M/Vi;/;2^/>^r^«^  or  which  is  done  by  him,  brings 
the  infant  into  fuch  a  relation  to  the  covenant  and 
to  the  church,  as  inverts  the  child  with  any  right  or 
title  to  the  privileges  of  tlic  church,  or  the  bleffings 
of  the  covenant  of  grace.'*  In  the  next  page  it  is  faid, 
that  fuch  children  as  are  baptized,  have  no  other 
rights  than  the  children  of  unbelievers,  *till  God  is 
mercifully  pleafed  to  bellow  converting  grace  upon 
them.  It  is  inconceivable,  therefore,  that  being  cut 
efffrom  his  people,  fliould  refpecl  the  child,  when,  if  it 
had  been  circumcifed,  it  would  have  had  no  right  or 
claims  to  the  privileges  of  the  church. 

In  my  former  inquiry,  the  cafe  of  Mofes'  negleft- 
ing  to  circumcife  his  fon  and  what  followed  in  eonfe- 
quence  of  it,  was  fuppofed  to  afford  decifive  evidence, 
that  the  breach  of  covenant,  in  fuch  a  cafe,  does  ref- 
pecl the  parent.  In  that  cafe,  the  whole  cenfure  fell" 
on  Mofes ;  for  God  fought  to  kill  him  ;  but  no 
threatnings  were  denounced  againfl  the  child.  If 
the  breach  of  covenant,  in  fuch  a  cafe,  were  the 
child's,  it  is  inyflcrious,  that  Mofes  fliould  be  fo  high- 
ly cenfured,  and  yet  there  be  not  the  leafl  intimation 
of  blame,  refpccling  the  child.~-It  ie  faid,  p.  30^  That 
Mofes'  fon  was  alfo  involved  in  evil  confequenc€S  ; — 
he  muff  have  been  feparated  from  the  people  of  God, 
excluded  from  eating  of  the  paffovcr,  &c.     But  as  has 


49 

been  already  obferved,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive,  how 
he  could  have  been  cut  off  from  thofe  privileges, 
when  if  he  had  been  circumcifed,  he  would  have  had 
no  other  rights  than  the  child  of  an  unbeHever. — 
Thus  much  is  certain,  that  if  any  evil  confequences 
did  follow  the  neglect  of  Mofes,  refpeding  his  child, 
there  is  no  intimation  of  it,  in  the  whole  hiilory  given 
of  the  tranfadion,  in  facred  writ.  It  is  certain  the 
whole  neglect  was  the  negletSl  of  the  parent,  and  that 
he  alone  was  blamed.  This  is  the  cafe,  in  every  in- 
ftanceof  fuch  anomilfion.  No  negligence  or  crimi- 
nal exercifcs  are  ever  chargeable  on  the  infant.  The 
blame  is  wholly  the  parents. 

On  the  whole,  from  the  view  which  has  now  been 
taken,  of  the  cnly  expreffions  in  the  whole  relation  of 
the  iranfaftions  between  God  and  Abraham,  which 
are  pretended  to  determine  decifively,  that  Abraham's 
natural  feed,  were  fo  refpeded  in  the  covenant  God 
made  with  him,  as  to  denominate  them  the  feed,  and 
to  introduce  them  into  a  covenant  relation  to  God. 
Is  it  not  evident,  that  no  fuch  thing  is  held  forth  ?  Each 
of  the  alledged  paffages,  is  perfectly  confident  with 
the  fentiments  advanced  in  my  inquiry ;  yea,  when 
attended  to,  in  connexion  with  the  preceding  decla- 
rations, afford  a  direft  proof  and  fupport  of  them. 


SECTION    V. 


Other  things  which  have  been  advanced  to  Jhow^  that 
Abraham* s  natural  feed  were  the  feed  refpeded,  in 
the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abrahamy  con- 
fidered. 

IF  it  were  true,  that  Abraham's  natural  feed  were 
refpeded  in  the  covenant,  which  God  made  with 
Abraham,  in  the  fenfe  in  which  it  is  pretended  they 
G 


50 

are,  yet,  nothing  would  follow  as  a  confequence, 
which  would  determine  the  inquiry  relative  to  the 
true  feed.  Abrahani*s  natural  feed  may  h^refpeSledy 
as  far  as  it  is  pretended  they  are  and  yetjnot  belong  to 
tne  feed  ;  for,  "  being  children  of  the  flcfh,  did  not 
mark  them  as  the  feed.  Mankind  may  be  faid  to  be 
the  feed  refpeBed^  in  the  promife  made  to  Chrift,  that 
he  Aould  "  fee  his  feed,"  &c.  but  being  men  did  not 
conftitute,  or  mark  any,  as  belonging  to  that  feed. 
This  will  be  readily  admitted  in  this  cafe  ;  and  it  is 
true,  that  the  natural  {^.^di  of  Abraham  were  the  {t&dt 
in  the  fame  fenfe  and  in  no  other,  in  the  promifes 
made  to  Abraham.  But,  faying  that  Abraham^s  feed 
were  refpeded  in  this  fenfe,  makes  no  advances  in 
charafterizing  the  true  feed,  who  fhall  inherit  the 
promifes.  And  the  flrefs  which  is  laid  on  it,  as  fo 
very  capital  a  confideration,  rather  tends  to  confound, 
than  to  help  the  inquiry,  refpeding  the  real  and  true, 
feed. 

It  may,  however,  help  to  a  right  apprehenfion  of 
the  antient  difpenfations  of  God,  to  attend  to  the  va- 
rious things  which  have  been  advanced  to  fliow,  that 
there  was  a  fpecial  refpeft  paid  to  Abraham's  natu- 
ral feed. 

It  is  a  general  obfervation,  that  "  If  it  be  true 
that  the  promifes  of  that  covenant,  (meaning  the  A- 
brahamic  covenant)  of  which  circumcifion  was  the 
feal,  refpefted  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham  ;  it  niufl 
be  evident,  that  the  promifes  of  the  fame  covenant 
with  believers,  refped  their  natural  feed.  p.  6^. — If 
by  the  promifes  of  the  covenant  be  meant,  the  prom- 
ifes of  the  eflentialblellings  of  the  covenant,  the  af- 
fertion  may  be  admitted  \  for  the  covenant  is  unalter- 
able, in  that  fenfe  of  it.  Yet,  it  is  not  true,  that  the 
covenant  in  that  fenfe  of  it,  does  refpect  Abraham's 
natural  feed,  in  any  fuch  way  as  to  entitle  any  one, 
fimply  as  one  of  Abraham's  natural  feed,  to  one  of  its 
eifential  blelHngs.  If  what  is  meant  is,  that  the  lame 
promifes  are  made,  refpe^ting   the  natural   feed   of 


51 

Gentile  believers,  as  were  made,  refpe£ling  the  natu- 
ral feed  of  Abraham,  it  is  by  no  means  true.  Al- 
though God  promifed  Abraham  that  his  natural  feed 
fhouid  be  very  numerous — fhouid  bring  forth  a  Sav- 
iour— fliould  poflefs  Canaan,  &c.  yet  no  fuch  prom- 
ifes  are  made  to  Gentile  believers,  refpecting  their 
pofterity.  And,  although  God  promifed  Abraham, 
that  he  would  fupport  a  Church  among  his  natural 
offspring,  yet  it  appears,  from  what  has  been  already 
obferved,  that  no  fuch  promife  is  made  to  Gentile 
believers,  concerning  their  offspring.  The  promife 
now  refpeds  Gentile  nations,  in  diflindion  frdm  the 
Jews,  the  pofterity  of  Abraham. — But,  although  the 
promifes,  which  God  makes  to  Gentile  believers  may 
not  be  ih^  fame,  in  every  refped,  with  the  promife s 
which  he  inade  to  Abraham,  concerning  his  natural 
offspring;  yet  it  may  anfwer  fome  important  purpo- 
fes,  to  attend  to  fome  of  the  things,  which  have  been 
advanced  to  fhow,  that  Abraham's  natural  feed  were 
refpefted,  as  the  feed  mentioned  in  the  promife, 
which  God  made  to  him,  of  being  his  God  and  the 
God  of  his  feed. 

It  has  been  faid,  "It is  manifefl:  that  the  promife 
to  Abraham  of  the  land  of  Canaan  refpeded  his  nat- 
ural feed.  And  it  is  equally  clear,  that  God  promif- 
ed to  Abraham  to  be  the  God  of  his  natural  feed,  as 
to  give  them  that  good  land."  p.  66.  It  is  further 
faid  that  "  Had  th^it parental  duty^  which  was  in-pli- 
ed in  the  practice  of  infant-circumcifwn.  and  connec- 
ted with  it,  been  faithfully  and  punclually  performed  j 
and,  yet,  the  land  of  Canaan  not  given  to  the  chil- 
dren of  Abraham,  it  might  with  reafon,  for  ought 
we  can  fee,  be  objeded,  that  God  had  (uffeied  his 
faithfulnefs  ro  fail.  p.  68.  Again,  it  is  further  faid, 
p.  70.  "  If  the  Deity  were  bound,  in  covenant  faith- 
fulnefs, to  give  the  land  of  Canaan  for  a  poiisllion  to 
thenaturaloffspringof  Abraham,  on  condition  that 
infant-circumcifion  was  pradlifed  and  thofe  parental 
.  duties  conneded  with  it  faithfully -performed  in  every 


fuccefTive  generation  ;  He  was,  alfo,  equally  bound, 
in  covenant  faithfulnefs,  on  the  fame  condition,  to 
be  the  God  of  the  fame  natural  offspring."  And,  it 
is  further  faid,,that,  "  If  the  Deity  were  bound,  by 
promife  to  Abraham, — to  beftow  the  land  of  Canaan 
upon  his  pofterity  for  a  poflefiion  ;  the  fame  covenant 
and  promife  fecured  the  exiftence  and  continuance 
of  real  religion, — a  true  church  in  his  family  and 
pofterity.'*  p.  "jG. 

In  reply  to  what  is  here  urged,  it  may  be  obferved, 
that  every  thing  contained  in  thofe  promifes  may  be 
admitted,  and  yet  nothing  would  follow  in  favour  of 
Abraham's  offspring  being  refpecled  as  the  feed  to 
whom  the  Lord  would  be  a  God  ;  or  in  any  fenfe 
help  the  inquiry  relative  to  the  true  fced.-tr-If  God 
did  promife  Abraham,  that  his  natural  feed  fhould 
inherit  Canaan — ^That  a  Church  fhould  be  maintain- 
ed among  them ;  and  Abraham  were  faithful  in  keep- 
ing covenant  with  God,  it  is  doubtlefs  true,  that  if 
God  had  not  given  Canaan  as  a  poffeffion  to  Abra- 
ham's pofterity,  and  had  not  kept  up  a  Church  a- 
mong  them,  he  would  not  have  been  faithful  to  ful- 
fil his  promife. — But  then,  what  would  follow  as  a 
confequence,  which  would  determine  any  thing  of 
importance,  in  the  prefent  inquiry  ?  Would  it  f ollowj 
that  Abraham's  natural  offspring,  as  fuch,  u>ere  the 
feed  to  whom  the  Lord  would  be  a  God  ?  What  was 
the  import  of  the  promife  ?  Was  it,  that  God  would 
bring  «// Abraham's  natural  pofterity  into  Canaan  r 
That  he  would  keep  up  a  church,  which  fliould  em- 
brace all  his  natural  pofterity  ?  Certainly,  this  was 
not  defigned  in  the  promife.  Several  generations 
were  wafted,  before  one  of  that  pofterity  entered  on 
that  good  land.  The  pofterity  of  Iftimael  and  of 
Efau  never  did  inherit  it.  What  was  defigned  in  the 
promife  was,  that  Canaan  fhould  be  poffeffed  by  A- 
braham's  pofterity ;  not  by  all  his  pofterity  ;  but  the 
inhabitants  fhould  confift  of  his  pofterity  ; — and,  that 
«  church  fhould  be  kept  up  among  them.     Not  that 


5$ 

all  his  pofterity  fhould  be  the  fubjeci:«  of  thofe  gra- 
dous  quahfications,  whicl  I  were  reqiiifite  to  qualify 
ihem,  as  members  of  th  e  church ;  but,  that  fuch 
qualifications  fliould  be  bc-flowcd  upon  a  fufHcient 
number.  What  the  numl'er  was  to  be,  and  who  the 
individuals  fhould  be,  which  fnould  compofe  it,  was 
left  to  the  fovereign  deternsination  of  God.  The 
promife  had  the  fame  refpe^t^  to  Abraham's  naturai 
poderity,  that  the  promife  m-ade  to  Chrift,  of  a  htd, 
had  to  mankind.  Although  the  Father  did  promife 
Chrifb  a  feed,  and  that  this  feed  Ihould  confifl  oi  ??ien  ; 
and  although  the  Father  would  not  have  been  faith- 
ful, if  he  had  not  given  ?;ic?i  to  Chriil  as  a  feed  ;  and 
although  the  promife  implied,  the  fupport  of  religion 
among  men  ;  yet  would  it  be  any  diftinguifhing 
charaderidic,  of  the  feed,  refpe«.^ed  in  the  promife  to 
Chrifl,  to  fay,  they  were  men  ?  i^t  would  be  juil  fuch 
a  dcfcription  of  Chrifl's  feed,  as  is  given  of  the  feed 
refpecl'ed  in  the  promife  to  Abrah;im,  when  it  is  faid, 
Abraham's  natural  feed  was  the  feed  relpeded  in  the 
promife.  For  the  promife  only  reipected  Abra.ham's 
natural  offspring,  as  the  people  out  of  whom  the 
feed,  who  fbould  inherit  Canaan.&c.  fliould  b  e  col- 
le<Sted  ;  as  the  promife  made  to  Chrifl  refpecled 
mankind,  as  the  race  of  beings  out  of  whom  th  e  feed 
of  Chrifl  fhould  be  feparated.  After  all,  bein^y  men 
dill  not  mark  any  as  belonging  to  Chrifl's  feed  ;  nei- 
ther did  being  a  child  of  Abraham  mark  any,  as  be- 
longing to  the  feed,  to  v/hom  the  Lord  would  be  2 
God  ;  as  is  fully  acknowledged.  Believing  alcrie  dif- 
tinguifhed  Chrifi's  feed,  and,  as  to  the  promifes  made 
to  Abraham,  it  is  acknowledged,  as  "  Unqucf  :iona- 
bly  true,  that  the  promifes,  in  their  truefpirit  implied 
that  none  fhould  be  heirs  of  eternal  good,  but  through 
Chrifl  and  by  virtue  of  union  to  him.**  p.  25.  And, 
p,  15,  "  It  is,  on  all  hands,  conceded  that  there  is 
no  promife,  that  the  Lord  will  be  a  God  to  an  y  but 
heiievirs.'*  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  beliieving 
is  the  difiinguifning  charafteriilic  of  the  feed,  both  in 


5^ 

the  promife  made  to  Abraham  and  to  Chrlft.  And 
that  faying  men  are  the  feed  in  the  latter  promife, 
and  that  Abraha?n's  natural  feed  2.x t  the  feed  refped- 
ed  in  the  former,  is  no  diftinguifhing  charadleriflic  of 
ttie  true  feed. — All  the  lal>oured  proofs,  that  Abra- 
ham's natural  feed  was  the  kcd  refpe6ted  in  the 
promife  made  to  him,  are  of  no  confequence  ;  for  it 
is  admitted  they  were  refpe(5led,  in  the  fenfe  in  which 
it  is  pretended  they  were  j  yet,  not  in  fuch  a  fenfe  as 
gives  any  diftingulfliing,  markof  the  particular  feed, 
which  the  inquiry  refpcfts.  It  conveys  a  plaufible 
ibund,  but  conveys  no  more  diftinct  ideas  concerning 
the  feed,  who  fnall  inherit  the  promifes,  than  faying 
men  are  refpecled  as  tbe  leed  given  to  Chrift,  dillind- 
iy  defcribes  the  feed  which  were  given  to  him. 

Another  argument  to  Ihow,  that  Abraham's  nat- 
ural pofterity  were  refpe£ted  as  the  feed,  mentioned 
in  the  promife  to  Abraham,  is  derived  from  the  ex- 
preflions  of  the  Apoftle  Paul,  Rom.  ix.  4.  In  which 
the  apoftle,  when  fpeaking  ©f  the  Jews  the  natural 
pofterity  of  Abraham,  fays,  "  To  whom  pertaineth^ 
the  adoption  and  the  glory  and  the  covenants  and  the 
giving  of  the  laiv  2ind  the  promifes."  It  is  faid,  that 
"  the  terra  adoption,  as  it  is  invariably  ufed,  by  this 
apoftle,  implies,  the  polfeftion  of  that  Ji/ial  Jpirit, 
whichi  diftinguifties  the  faints,  and  entitles  to  all  the 
gracious  promifes  of  the  gofpel,  in  their  fuUeft  ex- 
tent."  p.  10,  II. 

In  anfwer  to  what  is  here  faid,  it  may  be  obferved, 
that  if  adoption  in  that  text  muft  be  underftood,  as  a 
diftinguifhing  mark  of  the  feed,  and  is  to  be  confid- 
ered,  as  implying  "  the  poiTeflion  of  that  filial  fpirit, 
which  diftinguilhes  the  faints,"  kc.  then  it  compre- 
hended believers  only ;  and  fo  believers  only  were 
-refpefted  as  the  feed. 

Besides,  it  may  be  inquired,  whether  the  Jews 
were,  as  a  people,  adopted  in  fuch  an  high  fenfe  ? 
They  certainly  were  not  confidered,  as  adopted  in 
fuch  a  fenfe,  as  implied  that  they  were  real  faints  ?  If 


55 

•the  word  adoption  rauft  be  confidercd.  In  the  fcnfe 
mentioned^bove,  there  is  no  warrant  for  applying 
it  to  the  Jews,  confidered,  merely,  as  the  pofterity  of 
Abraham. 

That  the  apoftle  does  apply  thofe  expreflions,  to 
Abraham's  pofterity,  is  undoubted ;  and  that  there 
was  a  propriety  in  his  doing  it  is  manifeft  ;  without 
fuppofmg,  that  Abraham's  natural  pofterity  were 
refpedlcd  as  the  feed,  in  any  fuch  fenfe,  as  will  help 
us  to  diftinguilh  the  true  feed,  to  whom  the  Lord  will 
be  a  God. — It  is  granted,  God  did  promife  Abraham, 
that  he  w^oald  maintain  a  church,  for  a  feafon,  among 
his  poflerity,  in  diftinclion  from  other  nations.  That 
is,  that  he  would  collect  from  them,  a  feed,  which 
fhould  Inherit  the  promifes.  God  entered  upon  the 
execution  of  that  defign.  Abraham's  pojflerity  was, 
in  this  fenfe,  adopted,  in  diftlndion  from  the  Gen- 
tiles ;  yet,  that  promife  did  not  diftinguidi  any  indi- 
vidual, as  one  who  Ihould  inherit  the  promife,  of  ha- 
ving the  Lord  for  his  God.  But  God  defigned  to 
feparate  from  them  a  feed»  to  whom  he  would  be  a 
God.  As  this  was  God's  defign,  the  adoption  ■diViA  the 
promifes  did  refpedil  them,  in  fuch  a  general  fenfe.  So 
it  was  proper,  that  the  giving  of  the  law  and  all  the 
fpecial  means  of  grace  fhould  be  reflrlcled  to  them. 
The  natural  pofterity  of  Abraham  might  juftly  be 
feid  as  a  nation  and  people,  to  be  adopted^  to  have  the 
law  and  the  promifes  ;  for  as  God  had  fpecial  defigns 
refpeccing  them,  even  fuch  defigns  as  required,  that 
the  law  and  the  profiiifes  fliould  be  exhibited,  particu- 
larly to  them,  fo  the  promifes.  Sec.  might,  with  pro- 
priety, be  faid  to  pertain  to  them»  And  yet,  they 
were  not.  on  that  account,  the  feed  to  whom  the 
Lord  will  be  a  God,  any  more  than  mankind  are  the 
feed  given  to  Chrift,  becauie  they  are  adopted,  as  a 
body,  in  diftinCtion  from  devils,  and  have  the  meanti 
of  falvation  reitricled  to  them.  Thefe  obfervation* 
are  fupportpd,  by  what  the  apoftle  obferves,  In  the 
words  which  JPollow  the  expreiiions  under  confidcra- 


tion.  The  apoftle  who  Is  the  beft  interpreter  of  his 
own  expreffions,  openly  declares,  he  would  not  be 
underftood  to  fay,  that  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham 
were  to  be  confidered,  as  the  feed  which  fhould  in- 
herit the  promifes.  "  Neither,  fays  he,  becaiife  they 
are  the  feed  cf  Abraham  are  they  all  children  ;  hut  in 
Ifaacjhall  thy  feed  he  called.  That  is,  They  which  are 
the  children  of  the  flefh,//'^  are  not  the  children  of 
God.'*  Verfe  7,  8.  Nothing  can  be  inferred,  there- 
fore, from  the  expreffions  under  confideration,  in  fa- 
vour of  Abraham's  natural  feed  being  the  feed  ref- 
pefted  in  the  promife,  in  any  fenfe,  which  concerns 
the  prefent  inquiry  ;  as  thofe  expreffions  do  not  im- 
ply, that  Abraham's  natural  offspring  did  conftitute 
the  ked,  to  whom  the  Lord  will  be  a  God. 

It  is  further  fdd,  that  it  is  evident  Abraham's  nat- 
ural pofterity  were  peculiarly  refpecled,  as  the  feed 
mentioned  in  the  promife  to  Abraham,  from  the  ob- 
jedion  which  the  Jews  make  to  their  rejedion,  and 
the  apoflles  anfwer.  Rom.  iii.  i  ;  and  Rom.  xi.  i,  2. 
The  Jews  objeft,  that  their  rejedtion  would  not  con- 
fifl  with  the  truth  and  faithfulnefs  of  God  —That  it 
would  not  confifl  with  the  promifes  he  had  made 
concerning  that  nation.  The  objedion  goes  on  the 
ground,  that  there  was  a  particular  refpeci  to  them 
in  the  promifes.  p.  12,  13.  And  it  is  faid,  that  the 
apoflle  "  gives  an  anfwer,  which  fuppofeth,  that  the 
_promife  had,  indeed  a  particular  refpeft  to  the  natu- 
ral feed  of  the  father  of  the  faithful."  p.  13. 

It  might  be  fufficient,  to  remove  the  apparent  force 
of  this  argument,  to  fay,  that  the  natural  feed  of  A- 
braham  were  diftinguiflied  by  the  promife  made  to 
Abraham,  as  the  feed  out  of  whom  the  true  feed, 
who  fliould  inherit  the  promifes  was  to  be  collected  ; 
but  not  as  being  the  true  feed,  confidered  fimply,  as 
Abraham's  natural  feed.  This  is  a  granted  point ; 
tor  it  is  acknowledged,  p.  14,  15,  that,  "  T  hey  which 
'*  are  the  children  of  the  flefh  thefe  are  not  the  chil- 
"  dren  of  God,  but  the  children  of  the  promife  are 


SI 

*'  counted  for  the  feed— The  import  of  this  leafon- 
*'  ing  is,  that  the  promife  did  not  imply,  that  the 
"  Lord  would  be  a  God  to  the  feed  of  Abraham 
"  merely  becaufe  they  were  his  natural  aff spring ; 
"  but  over  and  above  this,  they  muil  be  the  children 
«'  of  promife.-— It  is,  on  all  hands,  conceded  that 
"  there  is  no  promife,  that  the  Lord  will  be  a  Gotl 
"  to  any  but  believers."  It  is,  therefore,  exprefsly 
acknowledged,  that  the  promife  did  not  refpeO:  the 
natural  feed  of  Abraham,  in  any  fuch  fenfe,  as  gave 
them  any  intereft  in  the  Lord  as  their  God,  only,  as 
being  believers. 

Besides;  whatever  that  refpecl  was,  which  was 
paid  to  the  Jews,  the  apoflle  is  clear  in  it,  that  it  was 
not  fuch  an  one,  as  conftituted  them  the  feed  ;  but 
that  it  was  their  being  believers.  This  is  clear  from 
the  apoftle's  reafoning,  contained  in  Rom.  xi.  chap- 
ter. He  there  teaches  the  Jews,  that  their  unbelief 
was  the  ground  of  their  rejedion — -That  no  promife 
Hood  in  the  way  of  their  rejcdion,  in  cafe  of  unbelief 
— That  their  being  the  natural  ofispring  of  Abraham, 
was  not  the  leaft  objedion  to  their  being  rejected. 
The  promifes,  therefore,  muft  refpecl  them  in  the 
character  of  believers,  and  in  no  other  chira61:er. 
Confidered  as  unbehevers,  God  was  under  no  greater 
obligations  to  them,  on  account  of  the  promife  he 
made  to  Abraham,  to  be  their  God,  than  he  was  to 
the  poflerity  of  Ham.  The  refpeft  which  God  had 
to  them,  merely  as  natural  defcendants  from  Abra- 
ham, was,  in  itlelf,  not  the  lead  objection  to  their  re- 
jedion. 

The  obfervatlons  which  have  been  made,  in  reply 
to  the  preceding  arguments,  may  ferve  as  a  reply  to 
feveral  other  things  which  are  confidered,  as  favour- 
ing the  pofition,  that  Abraham's  natural  offspring 
were  refpedled  as  the  feed,  mentioned  in  the  promife. 

On  the  whole,  it  appears,  from  what  has  been  faid, 
that  if  It  were  conceded,  that -Abraham's  natural  feed 
H 


58 

hada  refpeftpaid  them,  as  the  people,  from  whom 
the  true  feed  were  to  be  collefted  ;  yet,  it  would  give 
no  diftinguifiiing  charaderillic  of  the  feed,  to  whom 
the  Lord  will  be  a  God. 


SECTION     VI. 

In  which  it  is  inquired,  whether  there  now  is  or  e-ver 
was^  any  covenant  or  promife,  which  ahfolutely  con- 
ne6ts  the  piety  of  children ,  with  the  piety  and  faith- 
fid  exertions  of  parents. 

THAT  there  is  a  promife,  which  fecures  the  faith 
and  falvation  of  children,  on  the  condition  of 
parental  faithfulnefs,  is  elfential  to  the  fcheme  of  bap. 
tifm,  which  is  advanced,  in  oppofition  to  that  contain- 
ed in  my  former  inquiry.  If  it  were  admitted,  that 
there  was  a  promife  of  that  nature,  and  qualified  as 
that  is,  I  trull  it  appears,  from  what  has  been  already 
advanced,  that  it  would  not  afford  a  fufficient  fupport 
of  the  fcheme  of  baptifm,  founded  on  it,  nor  militate 
againft  the  fcheme  I  have  advanced.  Neverthelefs, 
ifit  canbefhown,  thatno  fuch  promife  or  article  is 
contained  in  the  covenant,  which  God  eft abhfhes,  be- 
tween himfelf  and  believers,  it  will  go  far  towards  ac- 
commodating differences.  If  the  promife  in  queftion 
did  iexift,  it  would  afford  no  greater  fecurity  of  the 
falvation  of  children,  than  is  contained  in  the  tender 
of  falvation,  upon  the  condition  of  the  repentance  and 
faith  of  fuch  children  ;  for  it  is  not  pretended,  that 
the  faithfulnefs  of  parents  is  fecured,  by  any  covenant. 
It  amounts,  to  no  more  than  a  tender  of  falvation,  on 
certain  conditions,  which  conditions,  are  in  no  way 
fecured.  All  this  may  be  faid,  concerning  the  gene- 
ral tender  of  falvation,  which  is  made  in  the  gofpel^ 
on  the  condition  of  perfonai  faith.     In  the  latter  tejtf- 


59 

der,  there  is  no  fecurity  of  faith  ;  and  in  the  former, 
no  fecurity  of  parental  faithfuhiefs. 

But  the  queflion,  now  under  confidcration,  ;ief- 
peds  the  be'mg  and  exijlence  of  a  proinife  or  conflitu- 
tionof  God,  which  conne6ls  the  fate  of  polierity, 
with  the  condu<^  of  parents.  Several  things  have 
been  offered  to  confideration,  to  (hoW;,  that  this  is  the 
cafe. — Thofe  arguments  will  now  be  particularly  con- 

fidered.- There  are  feveral  arguments  from  anato- 

gy,  to  which  it  may  be  proper  to  attend,  although  it  is 
prefumed,  that  arguments  of  that  nature,  cannot  go 
very  far,  in  determining,  the  nature  and  defign  of  pof- 
itive  mftitutions. 

I .  It  is  argued,  that  it  is  altogether  rational  to  fup- 
pofe,  that  there  is  full  provifion  made,  for  the  falva- 
tion  of  infants,  as  they  ihare  in  all  the  difadvantages 
ofthefalL  p.  54,  SB- 

To  which  it  may  be  anfwered,  that  it  will  not  be 
queftioned,  whether  there  is  provifion  m.ade  for  the 
falvation  of  children  j  but  it  is  not  feen,  that  more  can 
be  inferred  from  it,  as  the  argument  is  expreffed,  in 
favour  of  the  children  of  believers,  than  in  favour  of 
other  children.  Other  children  (hare,  in  all  the  dif- 
advantages of  the  fall,  as  well  as  the  children  of  be- 
lievers. If  the  bare  participation  of  the  difadvan- 
tages of  the  fall  be  a  fufficient  reafon  for  the 
conclufion,  that  the  children  of  believers  have  ample 
fecurity  of  falvation,  may  not  as  much  be  inferred 
concerning  other  children  ;  for  it  is  as  true,  that  the 
children  of  unbelievers  (hare  in  the  difadvantages  of 
the  fall,  as  that  the-chiidren  of  believers  do.  Befides, 
there  is  no  divine  conflitution,  that  either  one  or  the 
other  fliall  be  faved,  fhort  o^ pcrfonal  hkh. 

2.  Another  argument  is  grounded,  on  the  cove- 
nant and  conflitution  which  God  made  with  the  hrft 
parents  of  mankind,  refpe61ing  their  children.  It  is 
faid,  the  fate  of  their  poflerity  v/as  fufpended  on  thei3- 
condud — That  their  offspring  were  comprehended 
■with  them.     And,  as  a  conflitution  of  fuch  a  nature 


6o 

was  begun  at  their  original  creation,  it  is  no  more 
than  reafonable  to  fuppofe,  that  it  is  ftill  continued, 
and  will  be  continued,  through  all  fucceffive  genera- 
tions, p.  ij6. 

In  anfwer,  it  may  be  obferved,  that  this  argument 
is  founded  on  a  principle,  which  would  involve  fuch 
confequences,  as  the  author  of  it  would  be  unwilling 
to  admit.  The  argument  proceeds,  on  the  principle, 
that  the  prefent  conflitution,  which  God  has  eflablifh- 
ed,  comieds  the  condud  of  parents  and  the  fate  of 
their  pofterity,  jufl  as  the  firfl  covenant  connected 
the  fate  of  Adam's  pofi:erity,-\vith  his  conduct.  Oth- 
erv/ifeit  is  fuppofed,  that  the  advantages  derived  from 
Chrifl,  would  not  be  "  paramount  to  the  difadvan- 
tages,  wnich,  in  the  fame  refpeft,  were  derived  from 
Adam.''  In  the  latter  cafe, — the  cafe  of  Adam,  the 
fate  of  ail  his  pofterity,  to  the  remotefl  ages,  was  fuf-. 
pended  on  one  a6t  of difobedience.  Ifthe  argument 
mufi;  be  allowed  any  weight,  let  it  go  its  full  length, 
and  then  this  conclufion  muft  be  adopted,  that  one 
ad:  of  faith,  or  one  act  of  unbelief  mufl  determine 
the  fate,  not  only  of  the  next  fucceding  generation, 
but  of  all  generations  to  the  end  of  time.  Would 
the  advantages  derived  from  Chrifl  be,  otherwife, 
"  paramount  to  the  difadvantages,  which  were  deriv- 
ed from  Adam  ?'* 

The  comparifon,  inftead  of  being  made,  between 
Adam  and  believing  parents,  ihould  have  been  made, 
between  the  firfl  A*dam,  and  Jefus  Chrifl,  the  fecond 
Adam.  Inflead  of  parents  being  conflituted  the  fed- 
eral heads  of  God's  new  and  gracious  covecant  with 
men,  that  is  applicable  only  to  Jefus  Chrift.  Adam 
was  the  federal  head  of  his  poflerity  ;  but  Chriil  is, 
now,  the  head  of  his  fpiritual  feed.  And,  as  the  fate 
of  thepoflerity  of  Adam,  was  iufpended  on  his  con- 
dud,  fo  the  fate  of  men,  is  determined  by  a  union 
with  Chrifl  the  fecond  Adam,  as  a  fruit  and  effed  of 
his  atonement.  As  in  Adam  all  died,  fo  in  Chrift, 
all  his  fpiritual  feed,  fhall  be  made  alive.  The  con- 
rexign  which  fecures  life,  is  a  connexion  with  Chrifr, 


6i 

not  a  connexion,  merel;/,  with  pious  parents.  It  is 
acknowledged,  however,  that  a  connexion  with  pious 
parents  is  hi^rhly  important,  as  it  implies,  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  beft  means  of  lalvalion.  Yet,  the  facred 
fcriptures  confider  a  connexion  with  Jefus  Chrift,  as 
that  which  alone  fecures  falvation.  We  are  no  Avhere 
taught  to  fay.  As  in  Adam  all  died,  fo  in  believing 
parents  ihall  all  be  made  alive.  It  is,  therefore,  ton- 
cluded,  that  it  is  union  to  Chrid,  and  not  to  beheving 
parents,  which  fecures  the  bleffings  pf  the  new  cove- 
nant ; — that  Chriil  is  the  federal  head  and  not  be- 
lieving parents. 

It  is  farther  faid,  "  As  the  difadvantages,  arifing 
from  the  fall  of  Adam  are  more  than  compenfated  to 
the  world  by  ChriH  ;  this  would  give  us  reafon  to 
fuppofe,  that  in  the  covenant  eftablifhed  in  Chrift, 
there  is  as  real  and  ample  provifion  made  for  bleff- 
ings to  be  tranfmitted  from  believers  to  their  feed, 
as  there  was  in  the  convenant  made  with  the  origi- 
nal parent  of  mankind,"  p.  ^j.  But,  adopting  the 
fame  mode  of  reafoning,  may  it  not  be  further  faid, 
"  Inafmuch,  as  the  difadvantages  arifmg  from  the 
fail  of  the  hril  Adam,  are  more  than  compenfated  to 
the  world  in  Chrift  -/*  and  inafi^iuch,  as  the  ruin  of 
the  whole  human  race  was  infallibly  conneded  with 
the  difobcdience  of  Adam  ;  fo  there  is  reafon  to  be- 
lieve, that  thdre  is  provihon  made,  not  only  for  the 
fecurity  of  the  falvation  of  the  children  of  believers, 
but  for  the  actual  falvation  of  the  v.b  \v.  hnraan  race. 
Would  this  bleiTmg  more  than  '-  -^  ■  ■■^nfate  the 
difadvantagesof  the  fall  r"     I  wo:  :o   means 

intimate,  that  the  author  would  d.^._  ..  ,i:y  advaiice 
fuch  an  idea  ;  but  is  it  not  a  ccni.-.qii.ruce,  v/hich 
would  rieceifarily  follow  from  the  pr'uciple  and  mode 
or  reafoning,  which  is  adopted,  in  the  argument  un- 
der confideiation  ? 

3.  The  connexion  under  confideration  between 
parents  and  children,  particularly  between  believing 
parents  and  their  offspring,  is  argued  from  the  ex- 
iciu   cf  Chrift's   propitiation,    p.    58.      It   is  faid,' 


6i 

Chrift's  atonement  was  made  for  the  whole  world— < 
That  the  covenant  was  fprinkled,  with  the  blood  of 
Chriff.  And,  that,  "  The  riches  and  grace  afthe  new 
covenant  do  in  fa6l^  unquejiionably  correfpond  with  the 
worth  and  virtue  of  that  blood  with  which  it  is/prink- 
led,  and  in  which  it  is  ejiahlijfjed ;  and  are  commenfu- 
rate  therewith.  But  on  no  other  hypothejis  is  this  cor- 
refpondence  fo  viftble,  as  on  thai  which  fuppofetb  the 
covenant  ofgraee  to  be  fa  formed  as  to  tranfinit  its  blejf- 
ings  topojlerity."  p.  58. 

In  reply,  it  may  be  alked,  whether  the  principle 
and  mode  of  reafoning,  adopted  in  this  argument^ 
would  not  moft  neceli'arily  terminate  in  error?  May 
it  not  be  faid,  that  Inafmuch  as  the  new  and  gracious 
covenant  of  God,  isfpiinkled  with  the  precious  blood 
of  Chrift,  fo  the  grace  of  that  covenant,  will  unquef- 
tionably  correlpond  with  the  worth  and  virtue  of  that 
blood,  and  be  comnienfurate  with  it.  But,  on  no 
other  hypothefis,  is  fuch  a  correfpondence  fo  vifible, 
as  in  making  efFe£lual  provifion  for  the  falvation  of 
all  men  ?  Or,  would  that  have  been  too  great  an  ex- 
prefTion  of  grace,  to  correfpond  with  the  worth  and 
value  of  ChrifPs  blood  ?  The  principle  and  mode  of 
reafoning,  adopted  \\\  this  argument,  concludes  as 
llrongly,  in  favor  of  univerfal  falvation,  as  in  favor  of 
the  promife  it  was  defigned  to  eftablifh.  That  the 
meafures  God  will  take,  will  be  fuch,  as  will  corref. 
pond  with  the  blood,  with  which  the  covenant  is 
fprinkled,  cannot  be  doubted  ;  but  men  are  inade- 
qupte,  to  the  talk  of  pointing  out  the  meafures,  which 
will  belt  correfpond  with  the  value  and  worth  of 
Chriit's  blood.  Shorc-fighted  man  would  naturally 
conckkle,  that  the  falvation  of  all  m.en  would  be  fuch 
a  difplay  of  grace  as  would,  above  all,  correfpond 
with  ib  precious  l^lood  as  that  of  Chrift*s.  But,  rev- 
elation teaches  a  different  dofkrine.  A  conclufion, 
formed  on  the  premifes  advanced  in  this  argument, 
can  amount  to  nothing  more  than  mere  prefump- 
tion. 


63 

4.  tt  is  urged  in  favor  of  the  promifc,  fcfi:ablilK»- 
ing  a  connexion  between  the  faith  and  piety  of  pa^ 
rents,  and  the  piety  of  their  children,  that,  "There 
are  many  things  in  God*s  providential  dealings," 
which  teach  it — That  a  divine  conftitution,  of  the 
fame  nature,  is  vifible  in  wicked  men's  tranfmitiing 
their  moral  charaders  to  their  pofterity.  And, 
"  There  is  no  more  natural  inconfiftency  in  fuppo* 
fmg,  that  pious  parents  fliould  tranfmit  a  good  moral 
charafter  to  their  pofterity,  than  that  impious  pa- 
rents fhould  tranfmit  one,  that  is  bad.*'  p.  60, 

In  anfwcr  to  this  argument,  it  may  be  obferved^ 
that  it  is  as  true,  perhaps,  that  good  men  do  tranfmit 
a  good  moral  character  to  their  pofterity,  as  that 
wicked  men  tranfmit  a  bad  one  to  their  pofterity.— 
And  there  could  be  no  reafonable  objeftion,  againfl 
the  rectitude  of  God's  government,  if  he  had  fixed  an 
invariable  conftitution  in  both  of  thofe  cafes.  But 
it  does  not  appear,  from  obfervation,  that  there  is  a 
fixed  and  invariable  conftitution  in  either  cafe.— 
Good  men,  fo  far  as  <!an  be  determined  from  obferva* 
lion,  in  many  inftances,  have  very  wicked  and  aban- 
doned children.  On  the  contrary,  wicked  men, 
men  of  the  very  worft  moral  charaders,  fometimes 
have  children,  who  avoid  the  fmful  pradices  and  ex*: 
amples  of  their  parents,  and  fupport  an  excellent  mo* 
ral  character.  From  faft  and  obfervation,  therefore, 
it  appears,  that  there  Is  no  fixed  and  invariable  con*- 
ftitution  in  either  cafe. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  on  the  whole,  that  the  fev- 
«ral  arguments,  in  favor  of  the  promife  under  con- 
fideration,  from  analogy,  however  ingenioufly  they 
were  managed,  do  really  conclude  nothing  in  favor  of 
fuch  a  promife.  They  would  go  as  far  in  eftabliftiing 
known  and  allowed  falfehoods,  as  the  promife  they 
ivere  defigned  to  fupport. 

There  are  other  confiderations,  befides  thofe  from 
analogy,  which  have  been  ofl'ered,  in  fupport  of  the 
promife,  eftabliftiing  a  conuexion,  between  parentai 


64 

faithfulnefs  and  the  piety  and  falvatlon  of  children. 
It  is  faid,  that  the  facred  fcriptures  do  clearly  teach 
fuch  a  doctrine.      -   ■ 

The  promife,  which  God  made  to  Abraham,  is 
confidered  as  a  promife  of  that  nature,  and  as  trans- 
ferred over  to  gentile  believers.  But  it  appears,from 
what  has  been, already  obferved,  that  no  fuch  con- 
ftruction  can  be  put  on  that  promife.  The  promife 
coQtained  no  mcye,  than  the  fecurity  of  a  church,  for 
a  certain  time,  in  Abraham's  family.  The  condition 
of  the  promife  was,  Abraham's  faithfulnefs.  But,  in 
that  promife,  God  never  defigned  to  comprehend,  all 
the  natural  offspring  of  Abiaham,  although  he  were 
ever  fo  faithful.  Abraham  was  faithful,  but  the  pro- 
mif^is,  as  to  their  fulfilment  were  confined  to  a  part 
of  Abraha^n's  pofterity,  Neither  Khmael  and  his 
pofteriiv,  nor  Efau  and  his  pofterity,  were  included 
in  the  promife.  They  were  neither  permitted  to  in- 
habit Canaan,  nor  to  form  a  part  of  the  church.-— 
Befides,  the  promife  was  a  promife  which  was  peculiar 
to  former  difpenfations.  But,  it  is  unneceifary  to  en- 
large  here,  as  this  promife  has  been  fo  particularly 
confidered,  in  the  third  feftion  and  elfewhere. 

Many  other  paffages  in  facred  writ,  are  alfo  fup- 
pofed  to  contain,  or  teach  the  fame  promife.  It  will 
be  both  tedious  and  unnecelfary,  to  attend  to  every 
particular  palfage,  which  may  be  fuppofed,  in  fome 
way  or  other,  to  teach  or  imply  fuch  a  promife.  It 
may  fuffice  to  attend  to  fome  paflages,  on  which  the 
greateft  ftrefs  has  been  laid  •,  and  to  make  fuch  ob- 
fervations,  as  may  apply  to  fuch  pafiages  in  general, 
as  are  fuppofed  to  favour  fuch  a  promife. 

The  pafiages  which  have  been  moltly  infifted  on, 
are  thofe  in  Deut.  vii.  q,  and  Exodus  xxxiv.  7. 
""^  K710ZV  therefore,  ihat  the  Lord  thy  God,  he  is  God,  the 
faithful  God,  which  keepeth  covenant  and  mercy  with 
them  that  love  him,  a?id  keep  his  command  merits  to  a 
THOUSAND  GENERAT1-0N3."  On  the  Other  hand, 
Gpd  proclaims  himfelfa  jealous  God,  '' Vifiiin^  thi 


iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  a?id  upon 
the  children's  childrenjunto  the  third  and  to  the  fourth 
generation."  Thefe  paflages  have  been  fuppofed  to 
teach,  with  great  expHcitnefs,  that  the  fate  of  chil- 
dren is  fuipended  on  the  charader  of  parents,  by  a 
divine  conllitution. 

The  following  obfervations  may  be  ufeful,  in  af- 
certainin_oj  the  meaning  of  thefe  and  other  fimihir  paf- 
fages,  in  holy  writ. 

I.  FpvOM  a  confideratioii  of  the  nature  of  the  fup- 
pofed promife,  it  is  extremely  imprt)bable,  that  thefe 
or  other  paffages  were  defigned  to  teach  fuch  a  con- 
nexion between  parents  and  children. 

As  a  condidon  of  the  promife, it  is  faid,  that  it  Is  not 
only  necelfary,  that  parents  fhould  believe  in  Chrifl, 
as  mediater,  but  in  fuch  a  particular  promife.  If  a 
parent  be  a  believer  in  Chrift,  as  mediator ,  yet  he  is 
not  entitled  to  the  promife,  which  fecures  faith  and 
falvation  to  his  children,  unlefs  he  alfo  believes  in  the 
promife,  that  God  will  fave  his  children,  if  he  be  faith- 
ful in  their  education.  See  p.  loo.  Is  it  at  all  cred- 
ible, that  there  fliould  be  a  promife,  fo  conditioned 
and  qualified  ?  Faith  in  Chrift,  as  mediator^  is  that 
which  diflinguifiies  the  friends  of  God  from  his  ene- 
mies. It  is  that,  by  which  the  believer  lays  hold  of 
the  great  aAd  eifential  bleflings  of  the  covenant,  fo  as 
to  becoine  intcrefled  in  them.  Now,  that  a  faith  io 
diflinguifhing  and  efficacious,  as  to  his  oiuti  falvation, 
ihould  give  no  intereft,  in  a  fuppofed  promife,  refpeft- 
ing  his  feed  ;  and  that  a  belief  in  a  particular  prom- 
ife, which  comes  not  into  the  eflence  of  faith,  and 
may  exift  where  faving  faith  does  not  exift,  fhould 
abfolutely  conned  with  the  falvation  of  his  feed,  is 
incredible.  Faith  in  Chrift,  as  mediator,  is  the  con- 
dition of  new  covenant  bleffings  ;  and  not  a  faith  in 
fome  particular  promife.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive, 
therefore,  that  a  promife,  fo  qualified,  Ihould  exifl  or 
be  found,  in  the  above  cited  paiTages  or  any  other. 


6G 

But  that  no  miflake  may  be  made,  I  would  obferve. — 
2,  That  if  it  may  be  determined,  from  the  paffa- 
ges  under  confideration,  that  there  is  a  covenant  prom- 
iie  of  faving  bleffings,  to  the  children  of  pious  and 
faithful  parents,-  it  mu(t  be  concluded,  alfo,  that  cer- 
tain and  inevitable  deftrudlion  is  fecured,  to  the  chil- 
dren of  wicked  and  unfaithful  parents. It  is  a5 

pcfitively  faid,  that  God  vifits  the  iniquities  of  the  fa- 
thers upon  the  children,  for  four  generations,  as  it 
can  be  fuppofed  to  be  thought,  that  he  will  fave  the 
children  of  pious  and  faithful  parents.  If  a  promife 
of  life  to  the  one,  be  implied  in  one  part  of  the  words, 
a  fentenre  of  death  is  alfo  contained  in  the  other  part. 
The  declarations,  in  both  cafes,  are  equally  pofitive. 
Bur  do  fact  and  obfervation  afford  a  fupport  pf 
fuch  conclufions  ?  Is  there  not  reafon,  on  the  one 
hand,  to  conclude,  that  the  children  of  wicked  pa- 
rents are  fometimes  pious  ?  If  fo,  fact  contradicts  the 
above-mentioned  conftrudion  of  thofe  paflages ;  al- 
though it  will  be  conceded,  that  wicked  parents  have, 
no  pofitive  reafons  to  exped,  faving  bleffings  for  their 
offspring. 

On  the  other  hand,  is  there  not  all  the  evidence, 
which  fact  and  pbiervation  can  afford,  in  fuch  a  cafe, 
of  the  wickednell^f  fome  of  the  children  of  fuch  pa- 
rents, who  were  "really  pious  ?  No  more  abandoned 
and  wicked  charafter  is  to  be  found,  among  the  fons 
of  Belial,  than  that  in  which  Abfalom,  the  fon  of  the 
man  after  God's  own  heart,  lived  and  died?  It  may 
be  faid,  that  notwithflLinding  the  apparent  and  even 
real  piety  of  parents,  they  may  be  very  negligent  in 
the  education  of  their  children.  But  what  can  b& 
fi)id,  in  cafes  where  parents  are  very  fa?}wus  for  their 
piety  j — are  declared,  by  God,  to  he  fi7igularly  good, 
and  yet  have  children,  as  fin.g^ularly  wicked  and  pro- 
fane ?  But  it  is  prefumed,  that  no  one  will  venture  to 
afiirm  more,  in  the  cafe  of  vvicked  and  negligent  pa- 
rents, than  that  by  fuch  negligence,  they  eminently 
e?>pofe  their  children  to  ruin  j  and  are  taking  the 


67 

moft  direct  meafures  to  fecuve  it.  If  that  be  all, 
which  can  Mely  be  inferred  concerning  wicked  pa- 
rents and  iheir  children,  then  more  cannot  be  deter- 
mined, in  the  cafe  of  faithful  and  pious  parents,  than 
that  they  are  taking  fuch  meafures,  as  have  the  great- 
eft  tendency,  to  fecure  the  falvation  of  their  children. 
The  threatning  is  as  politive  and  extenfive  as  the 
promife.  But, 

3.  It  is  very  evident,  that  it  was  not  the  defign  of 
the  facred  writers,  in  the  paiTa^es  now  under  confid- 
eration,  to  fuggeft  a  fmgle  idea,  concerning  the  f'.Vii:«^ 
of  the  covenant. 

Whoever  pays  a  particular  attention  to  the  con- 
nexion, between  thoie  words, in  Deut.  vii.9.  and  wh^t 
precedes,  muft  be  convinced,  that  the  words  v/ere  de- 
figned,  to  enforce  a  fenfe  c{  ihefaithfulnefs  of  God  in 
keeping  a  covenant  which  he  had  made,  and  not  to 
ihow  the  esctejit  of  the  covenant.  In  the  preceding- 
part  of  the  chapter,  Mofes  had  been  enumerating,  the 
numerous  favors  which  God  had  beftowed  on  the  If- 
raelitGS,  He  then  faid  that  God  had  done  all  this, 
"  Becaufe  he  would  keep  the  oath  which  he  had 
fvvorn  unto  their  fathers"— -^That  God  had  for  fg 
long  a  time,  and  through  fo  many  generations,  been 
pundual  in  fulftlHng  his  covenant.  Then  come  in 
the  words,  "  Knoiv^  therefore-,  that  the  Lord  thy  God 
he  is  God,  the  faithful  God  which  keepeth  covenant 
and  mercy,  &c.  to  a  thoufand  generations.**  Th« 
faithfulnefjj  of  God,  is  the  great  thing,  which  was 
defigned  to  be  enforced  in  thofe  words — ^That  he  is 
not  like  fickle  m.cn,  who  foon  Jorget  their  promifcs  ; 
but  that  he  remembers  his  covenant,  from  generation 
to  generation,  even  to  the  moft  diftant  period.  It 
was  altogether  foreign  from  the  dcCi^n  of  Mofes,  to 
fugged  aa  idea,  relative  to  the  ^A'/t'?// of  the  covenant, 
It  maybe  inferred  from  the  words,  indeed,  that  the 
covenant  which  God  made  with  the  fatliers,  had  a 
rt-fpecl  to  that  generation  ;  a  refpect  fnnilar  to  that 
which  ha?  already  be«i  defcribcd  ;  but  there  i>  not 


68 

the  leafl:  intimation,  of  fuch  a  promlfe,  as  conne^s 
the  piety  of  parents  with  the  piety  of  children.  The 
plain  and  fimpje  truth  in  view  was,  that  God  is  a 
faithful  God  to  keep  covenant,  and  not  to  fuggeft  a 
nngle  idea  concerning  the  extent  of  any  covenant, 
which  God  had  made. 

Similar  obfervations  may  be  made,  on  the  other 
paffage,  which  refpeds  the  wicked,  taken  in  its  con^ 
nexion.  There  God  alferts  his  determination  to  ex- 
ecute his  threatenings.  No  one  would  choofe  to  af- 
fert,  that  the  defign  of  thofe  words  was,  to  eftablifli 
this  as  a  truth,  viz.  That  if  any  parent  fuftains  a  wick- 
ed chara^Sler,  that  his  children  and  his  children*s 
children,  to  the  fourth  generation,  fhall  unavoidably 
be  damned, 

It  appears  frem  thefe  obfervatjons,that  the  paflages 
which  have  now  been  confidered,  never  were  defign- 
ed  t©  teach  the  exiftence  of  any  fuch  covenant  or 
promife,  as  that  which  fufpends  the  fate  of  children 
on  the  charafters  of  parents  ;  or  abfolutely  conneds 
the  piety  of  faithful  parents,  wjth  the  piety  of  their 
children. 

But  it  may  be  a(ked,what  fliall  we  make  of  the  many 
declarcuionsjwhich  appear  to  promife  and  connefl:  the 
piety  of  children  with  the  faithfulnefs  of  parents  ? 

Anfvjer.  Many  of  them,  at  lead,  have  a  rcfpe£t:  to 
<he  generation  of  godly  men. 

As  to  others  which  have  a  refped  to  the  natural 
offspring  of  the  righteous,  they  are  to  be  confidered, 
^s  many  other  pofitive  declarations  are  confidered — 
As  what  maybe  hoped  for  and  ordinarily  expelled. 
There  is  a  declaiation,  which  naturally  impHes,  that 
children  fliall  have  long  life,  if  they  are  obedient  un- 
to parents.  And  that  wicked  men  ftall  not  live  our 
half  their  days.  But  wicked  men,  fometimes,  live 
to  a  very  great  age  ^  and  obedient  children  are,  fome- 
times, cut  oft' in  the  beginning  of  their  days.  In  ift 
Timothy,  iv.  14.  Paul  fays  to  Timothy,  "  Take  heed 
unto  th{felf,  mid  unto  ihy  do^nne  ;  for  i?t  doing  ihU 
iJjQU  (halt  bath  fave  thyfclf  and  ihem  lb  at  hear  ihtY." 


til  thefe  words,  there  is  a  mofl:  pofitlvc  declaration, 
that,  in  czfe  Timothy  fliould  take  heed  to  himfelf  and 
his  doclrine,  he  fhould  lave  not  only  himfelf  but  his 
hearers.  But,  will  any  one  underftand  them,  as  a 
covenant  and  promife,  that  if  a  minilter  is  faithful  to 
preach  found  dodrine,  he  ihall  abfolutely  fave  all  that 
hear  him  !  No  one  will  underftand  more,  by  the  words 
than  this,  that  if  amlnifter  follows  the  apoftles  direc- 
tion, he  may  hope  and  expetl,  to  be  favingly  profita- 
ble to  his  hearers  ;  but,  x^therwife,  he  ean  have  no 
reafonable  expedations  of  it. — In  the  fame  fenfe,  the 
declarations  which  are  made,  refpedinjr  the  efficacy 
of  parental  faithfulnefs,  are  to  be  underftood.  Not- 
withilandino-  the  declaration  of  the  apoflle  Paul,  there 
is  reafon  to  believe,  that  the  wicked  are  not  always 
"  plucked  away,"  when  the  gofpel  is  faithfully  dif- 
penfed.  There  is  the  fame  reafon  to  believe,  that  the 
moft  faithful  exertions  of  parents  are  not  always  fuc- 
cefsful.  The  moft  pious  parents  have,  fometimcs,  ve- 
ry abandoned  children. 

On  the  whole,  from  the  preceding  obfervations  it 
is  evident,  that  there  is  no  lullicient  reafon  to  believe, 
theexiftcnceofany  fuch  covenant  or  promife,  as  ab- 
folutely connects  the  pious  and  faithful  exertion  of 
parents,  v/ith  the  faith  and  falvatlon  of  their  children. 
Faithful  parental  exertions  are  to  be  confidered,  as  the 
moft  efficacious  means  of  the  falvation  of  children  ; 
znd.  if  parents  are  unfaithliil,  they  have  no  pofitive 
reafon  to  expccl:  fo  important  a  blefiing.  Neverthe- 
lefs,  it  does  not  appear,  that  God  has,  by  any  cove- 
nant, rendered  the  faith  and  falvation  of  children,  ab- 
folutely certain,  although  parents  are  ever  fo  faithful. 
And  thisconftruclion  of  the  promife  does  not  render 
it  uncertain,  whether  there  will  be  believers  in  future, 
as  is  fuggefted,  p.  25  ;  for  the  promife  of  the  Father 
to  Chrift,that  he  ffiall  "fee  his  feed,"  and  the  pro- 
mife of  Chrift  to  his  chuich,  that  the  "  gates  of  heU 
fnall  not  prevail  againft  it,"  afford  perfect  fecurity,  of 
fuch  a  number  ot  believers,  as  ftiall  be  fafficient,  ta 
continue  a  church  to  the  end  of  time. 


SECTION  vn. 

The  cmdition  of  the  covenant ^of  grace  ; — imhat  is  meant 
by  being  in  covenant  and  the  dejign  of  circumcifion 
conjidered. 

THE  condition  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  compre- 
hends thofe  things,  which  are  requifite  to  the 
enjoyment  of  a  title  to  the  bleflings  of  the  covenant. 
— A  covenant  ever  fuppofes  two  contrading  parties. 
In  the  covenant  of  grace,  the  parties  concerned  are 
God  and  men.  In  that  covenant,  God  gives  himfelf, 
conditionally,  to  men,  as  their  God.  The  prefent 
inquiry,  refpeds  thofc  things  which  are  requifite,  on 
the  part  of  men,  as  the  condition  of  enjoying  God  as 
their  God. 

It  has  been  faid,  that  parental  faithfulnefs  is  the 
condition  of  the  covenant,  as  the  children  of  believers 
are  refpeded.  But  it  may  well  admit  of  a  queftion, 
whether  fomething  further  and  more  perfonai  be  not 
requifite  ?  It  is,  indeed,  faid  to  be  conceded  on  all 
hands,  "  That  there  is  no  promife  that  the  Lord 
will  be  a  God  to  any  but  believers.'*  Parental  faith- 
fulnefs, therefore,  does  not  comprehend  the  condition 
of  the  covenant,  refpeding  the  children  of  believers  j 
for,|  antecedant  to  fuch  children  having  a  title  to  the 
bleiTmgs  of  the  covenant,  they  rauft  be  believers.  No 
claims  can  be  made  to  the  bleflings  of  the  covenant 
cf  grace,  or  any  other  covenant,  till  the  prefcribed 
conditions  are  fulfilled. 

What  is  the  condition  of  the  covenant  of  grace  ? 
An  anfvver  to  this  queftion,  although  an  important 
one,  is  eafy.  It  is  conceded,  on  all  hands,  that  be- 
lieving is  necefiiiry  to  a  title,  to  the  Lord,  as  our  God. 
And  it  is  certain,  that  *' he  that  believeth  fnall  be 
faved  j'*  or,  inherit  the  bleiTings  of  the  covenant. 
The  term  or  condition,  of  enjoying  a  title  to  new 
covenant  blefiin-^s,  is  the  fanie,  as  k  refpeds  the  Jew, 
as  when  it  refpgcU  a  Gentile — The  fame,  refped- 


7£ 

ing  high  and  low,  great  aad  fmall,  rich  and  poor. 
But  one  condition  is  mentioned,  either  in  the  old 
Teftament  or  the  new.  Circumcifion,  which  was  a 
token  of  Abraham's  covenant-ftanding,  was  a/eal  of 
ihe  rigbteoufnefs  of  his  faith.  Faith  was  always  en- 
joined, on  Abraham's  pofterity,  as  the.  condition  of 
the  covenant ;  and  they  finally  fell,  through  unbelief. 
The  gofpel  enjoins/?///?,  as  the  lowed,  and  yet  a  cer- 
tain condition  of  pardon  and  falvation.  It  is  difficult 
to  account  for  it,  how  the  natuial  offspring  of  Abra- 
ham came  to  be  cenfidered  as  the  feed  mentioned  in 
the  covenant,  when  the  fcripture*  teach  us,  with  fo 
great  explicitnefs^  that  it  is  being  "  Chrill's"  and  ha- 
ving \\\Q  faith  of  Abraham^  which  conftitutes  ihcfeedy 
— the  children  which  the  covenant  refpe£ls. 

Again  ;  it  is  neceifary  to  obferre,  that  perfonal 
faith  is  requifite,  to  a  perfonal  title  to  the  bleffings  of 
the  covenant.  The  faith  of  one  perfon,  is  never  thie 
condition  of  the  covenant,  refpecling  another.  A  be- 
liever may  be  made,  a  fpecial  means  of  the  faith  and 
falvation  of  another  perfon  ;  but,  the  faith  of  one 
perfon  was  never  confidered,  as  the  condition,  oa 
which,  another  perfon  fhould  enjoy  a  title  to  new- 
covenant  bleihngs.  It  is  faid,  "  He  that  believeth 
fhallbefaved." 

It  is  neceflary  to  obferve  again  ;  that  it  is  the  ac' 
iiial  exi/ience  and  f.vdTf//^  of  faith,  which  is  the  condi- 
tion of  the  covenant.  A  propofal  of  the  covenant 
does  not  confummate  a  covenant-ftanding,  or  title  to 
the  bleffings  of  the  covenant ;  but  it  is  the  real  exift- 
ence  and  exercife  of  faith.  Hence  then,  it  may  be 
concluded,  that  the  condition  of  the  covenant  of  grace 
is  faith  in  Chrift  ; — theperjonal  exiftence  and  exer- 
cife of  faith.  It  is  indeed  conceded,  that,  "  No  one 
"  can  claim  bleffings  ftipulated  to  another.  No  one 
"  iiath  any  right  or  claim  to  the  bleffings  promifed 
"  in  the  covenant,  otherv/ife  than  upon  a  compliance 
''  with  the  conditions  of  the  covenant.  There  is  no 
"  propriety  in  fpeaking  of  an  infant's  right  to  bap- 
''  tifm,  or  to  any  other  bleffing  of  the   covenant  of 


72 

"  grace,  in  virtue  of  any  covenant  whatever,  eftab- 
"  liflied  with  its  parent.  We  no  where  find  any 
,"  covenant  fubfifting  betwixt  God,  and  any  particu- 
"  lar  perlbn,  whiqh  promifeth  the  bleffing  of  the  fa- 
"  vour  and  friendftiip  of  God,  otherwife  than  on  the 
*'  performance  of  certain  conditions,  on  the  part  of 
"  the  perfon  with  whom  it  is  eftabhfhed/*  p.  90,  91. 
If  the  fentimenes  contained  in  this  quotation  are  true, 
as  they  doubtiefs  are,  it  mufl  certainly  follow,  as  is 
held  forth  in  my  former  inquiry,  that  infants  are  not 
in  covenant,  by  virtue  of  any  covenant,  exifling  be- 
tween God  and  their  parents  ;  and  confequently  can- 
not be  baptized,  in  token  of  their  being  in  covenant. 

I  SHALL  now  proceed  to  confider,  what  is  meant, 
by  being  in  covenant. 

By  being  in  covenant,  is  meant,  not  only  being 
under  obligations  to  perform  covenant  duties,  but 
having  a  title  to  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant. — It 
does  never  mean,  fimply,  that  perfons  are  refpededm 
the  difpenfation,  or  tender  of  the  covenant  ;  for,  if 
that  were  meant  ^// who  enjoy  the  gofpel,  whether 
believers  or  unbehevers,  faints  or  fmners,  would  be 
in  covenant. 

Again  \  being  in  covenant  does  not  confift,  in  the 
bare  enjoyment  of  ever  fo  great  external  advantages, 
for  fecuring  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant.  External 
advantages  maybe  enjoyed,  in  the  moft  liberal  man- 
ner, by  fuch  as  will  never  enjoy  the  Lord  as  their 
God.. 

It  may,  finally,  be  obferved,  that  being  in  cove- 
nant does  not  confift  in  ever  fo  firm  a  fecurifcy  of 
feith,  in  fome  future  time.  All  which  could  be  faid 
in  fuch  a  cafe  would  be,  that'  a  perfon  certainly  will, 
in  fome  future  time  be  in  covenant  ;  but  at  prefent 
has  no  title  to  covenant  bleffings.  Therefore,  there 
is  the  higheft  impropriety  in  fpeaking  of  perfons,  as 
being  in  covenant,  on  account  of  any  fuppofed  fecu- 
rlty  of  faith  in  fome  future  time  ;  for,  at  prefent,  they 
are  not  ia  covenant,    Nothing  ihort  of  an  a<5lual  com- 


73 

pliance  with  or  performance  of  the  condition  of  the 
covenant,  can  give  a  title  to  its  promifes.  And,  noth- 
ing fhort  of  a  real  title  to  the  bleffinf^s  of  the  cove- 
nant, introduces  any  one  into  a  covenant-flanding. 
And,  as  faiih  is  the  condition  or  term  of  the  cove- 
nantj  fo  none  but  real  believers  have  a  real  covenant- 
(landing.  Infants  cannot  be  confidered,  as  being. in 
covenant^  on  account  of  any  promife  which  may  fe» 
cure  faith,  in  fome  future  time  ;  and  efpecially  be- 
fore the  condition  of  the  fuppofed  promife  is  perform- 
ed ;  and  above  all,  when  there  is  no  fecurity  of  its  ev- 
er being  performed. 

The  next  inquiry  refpecls  the  defign  of  circum- 
cifion. 

Circumcision,  as  a  divine  ordinance,  was  inftitii- 
ted,  when  God  direcled  Abraham  to  keep  his  cove- 
nant, and  as  requifite  to  it.  "  God  /aid  unto  Abra- 
ham, thou  pah  keep  iny  covenant,  life.  This  is  the  cove* 
nant  which  ye  pall  keep,  Is'c.  Every  man-child  atnouf^ 
youjloallbecircumcijed,  tsfc.  Gen.  xvii.  9,  10.  It  was 
therefore,  as  is  generally  believed,  an  inftituted  fign 
of  the  covenant,  to  be  pvactifed  through  the  whole  oi 
that  difpenfation. — It  may  be  obferved  further,  that 
it  was  not  dcfigned^  as  a  general  token  of  a  covenant, 
in  which  God  was  ready  to  tranfact  with  men ;  but 
it  w^as  an  open  and  public  fign,  that  the  perfon,  who 
adively  fubmitted  to  it,  was  in  covenant ;  or  it  w^as  a 
fignj  that  the  circumcifed  adult,  at  the  time  of  its  ad- 
miniilration  was  in  covenant^  or  a  believer.  Hence, 
of  Abraham  it  is  faid,  "  He  received  the  fign  of  cir- 
Cumcifion,  afeal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  the  faith  which 
he  had^  yet  being  iincircumcifedy  Rom.  iv.  11.  It  was^ 
doubtiefSj  of  the  fame  import,  refpeding  every  cir- 
cumcifed adult.  And  it  is  conceded,  that,  "To  the 
parent  it  wai  God*s  feal  of  the  fubjeft's  title  to  eternal 
life.  p.  Oj'}^,*     And  "  Circumcifion  was  a  feal    and 

*  In  this  quotation,  circHmcifion  is  called  God's  feal.    And  in  p. 
71,  it  is  called  a  f«al,  vn  God's  part,  as  well  as  on  the  part  oi  parents; 


74 

confirmation  tp  Abraham  of  every  blefiing  contained 
and  expreffed  in  that  covenant  ofpromife,  ot  which  it 
was  a  token  or  feal.  p.  47.  Circumcifion  then,  as 
aduhs  were  refpe^ed,  was  a  fign  and  feal  of  the  fub- 

Although  the  prefent  inquiry,  does  not  eflentially  depend  on  its  be- 
ing determined,  whether  circumcifion  were  a  feal,  on  the  part  of  God 
and  parents,  or  on  the  part  of  parents  wnly  ;  yet,  it  may  not  inter- 
rupt the  main  inquiry,  if  a  few  thoughts  are  here  fuggefted,  as  rea- 
fons  for  the  conclufion,  that,  as  a  feal  of  the  covenant,  circumcifion 
refr-fded  man  only.  Jt  is  juftly  called  God's  covenant,  becaufe  it 
Oiiginated  from  him,  and  was  a  fign  which  he  inflituted.  But,  that, 
as  a  feal  of  the  covenant,  it  folely  refpe6ted  man,  may  appear, 

1.  Becaufe  man  was  folely  aiiive  in  the  aj^plieation  of  it. 

The  rain-bow  in  the  heavens,  was  properly  God's  feal  of  the  cove- 
nant ;  becaufe  it  was  fomething  which  he  performed,  in  teftimony  of 
the  truth,  or  in  confirmation  of  the  declaration  he  had  made,  not  to 
delude  the  earth  again.  But  circumcifion  was  performed  by  man-, 
in  confirmation,  or  as  a  token  of  his  compliance  with  the  covenant. 

2.  Another  reafon  for  the  conclufion  is,  that  the  Deity  had,  by 
moft  pofitive  declarations  bound  himfelf  to  be  the  God  of  Abraham 
and  his  believing  feed,  on  the  condition  of  their  keeping  covenant. 
The  only  thing  wanting,  therefore,  was  ateft  and  mark  of  their  keep- 
ing covenant.  This  is  a  reafon  for  the  conclufion,  that  circumcifion 
was  fuch  a  token. 

i.  The  fcriptures  teach,  with  great  explicitncfs,  that  crrcmcifion, 
as  a  fign  of  the  covenant,  was  wholly  on  the  part  of  man.  Particu- 
larly does  this  appear  from  Gen.  xvii.  9,  11.  Where  God  enjoins  it 
on  Abraham  aiid  his  believing  feed,  to  kee-p  co'ven(i?it.  He  alfo  informs 
them,  what  mutt  be  done,  viz.  circumcife  thtir  males.  Then  the 
meaning  o/itis  declared,  viz.  a /o>^f?/ of  the  covenant,  &c.  i.e.  A 
token  of  their  keeping  covenant,  and  fo  cf  the  confummation  of  the 
covenant,  betwixt  God  and  them — As  to  God's  keeping  covenant, 
it  did  not  admit  of  a  queftion.  But  there  needed  fome  tell  or  mark 
of  the  faithfulneffi,  or  covenant  engrigements  of  men.  The  covenant 
was  propofed  and  tendered  by  God ;  nothing  but  man's  coniplianer 
with  it  was  needed  ;  circumcifion  was  a  token  of  this.  Bcfides,  the 
Apoftle  Paul,  evidently,  confidered  the  cafe  thus,  Rom.  iv.  11. 
"  And  he  (Abraham)  received  the  fign  of  circumcifion,  a  jtal  cf  the 
rlvhteoiifriefs  of  the  faith  'which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircumcifcd." 
Circumcifion,  as  a  feal  of  the  covenant,  is  confidered  in  this  paffage, 
a:;  having  a  fr,le  rcfped:  to  Abraham.  It  is  from  fach  a  view  of  it, 
that  circumcifion  under  the  old  Tefiament  was  confidered  as  a  fign 
vii  /(irMification,  QV  i[\t  v.cw  Heart:  And  baptifm,  in  the  gofpcl,  is 
confidered  as  the  fiv.n  oi  rcgefieration,  and  oi piiitir.^  en  Chri/i  \  with- 
out fo  much  as  hi-nting,  as  I  do  not  recolledt  it  is  ever  hinted,  that  it 
iignified  any  thing,  relative  to  God's  faithfulnefs  in  keeping  cove- 
nant. From  thefe  confideratisns,  there  is  reafon  to  conclude,  that 
circumcifion  and  fo  baptifin,  as  feal.s  of  the  covenant,  are  Itals  cnthc 

part  of  believers  only. Whether  this  be  a  juft  conception  of  them 

or  not,,  is  not  eflential  to  the  general  inquiry  under  confideration  ; 
yet,  it  i;  not  an  inquiry  altogetticr  fureign  to  the  fubje^^. 


7S 

i<;ct's  title  to  the  bleflings  of  the  covenant ;  or  of  his 
faith  and  compliance  with  the  covenant. 

But,  could  it  have  the  fame  deiign  and  import, 
refpe£ting  the  circumcifed  iniant  ?  Could  it  when  ad- 
miriiftred  to  an  infant,  be  a  fign  and  "  feal  of  the 
fubjecl's  title  to  eternal  life  r"  When  "  No  promifes 
whatever  are  made  to  the  child."  p.  90.  Could^  it 
be  a  "  confirmation  oi  every  hlcjjlng  contained  and 
expreffed  in  the  covenant  of  promife,  as  it  was  to  A- 
braham  ;  when  infants  were  intirely  pailive,  and  had 
no  promifes  fealed  to  them,  as  is  aflerted  refpeding 
baptized  infants  ?  p.  108.  And  could  it  poiTibly  be 
a  fign  of  the  fubjecFs  title  to  eternal  life,  in  the  cafe 
of  infants  ?  when  fuch  \\\{2ints  *^  are  poffejfcd  of  no 
6ther  rights  than  thofe  of  unbelievers,''  'till  God  is 
.mercifully  pleafed  to  regenerate  them,  as  is  direftly 
atferted,  p.  108.  It  could  not  import  the  fame  thing 
on  thofe  principles,  nor  upon  any  other. — As  the 
male-children  of  believers  were  to  be  circumcifed,  it 
mufl  be,  for  fome  other  purpofe,  as  infants  were  re- 
fpefted,  than  that  which  was  defigned  refpeclins:  the 
adult.  The  parent  or  adult  was  to  be  circumcifed, 
as  a  feal  of  the  rigbteotfnefs  of  his  faith.  "  To  the 
parent  it  was  God's  feal  of  the  fubjecl's  title  to  eter- 
nal life."  But  his  male-children  could  not  be  cir- 
cumcifed, as  a  feal  of  any  fuch  thing  ;  for  they  had 
no  other  rights  than  the  children  of  unbelievers,  as  is 
alferted.  If  the  infants  of  believers  had  no  rights, 
no  rights  or  titles  could  be  foaled  to  them,  without 
fealing  a  falfehood. 

It  appears,  therefore,  although  it  is  thought  an 
objedion  of  weight  aeainih  rhe  fcheme  advanced  in 
my  former  inquiry,  that  baptifm  was  of  a  different 
import,  when  the  child  v/as  refpected,  from  the  im- 
port  it  had  refpecfing  an  adult,  p.  33,  that  it  mul^ 
neceffarily  be  fo,  even  on  the  principles  of  the  ob- 
jedor. 

^  The  queflion   Aill  remains,  what  was  figniiied  in 
circumcifion,  as  infants  were  refpeded  ?  In  mv  for- 


ii. 

mer  inquiry  it  was  infifted  on,  tliat  ir  was  a  joint-to- 
ken, with  the  parent's  circumcifion,  of"  the  covenant, 
or,  that  the  parent  did  keep  covenant  with  God.  Gg4 
required  Abraham,  as  a  requifite  to  his  keeping  cove- 
nant, to  circumcife  his  male-children  ;  And,  at  the 
fame  time  declared,  that  this  (hould  be  a  token  of  the 
covenant  between  him  and  Abraham,  Circumcifion, 
it  is  granted,  implied,  the  dedication  of  the  male- 
child.  And  the  dedication  of  children  muft  be  con- 
fidered,  as  a  difcharge  of  a  capital  branch  of  the  pa- 
rent's covenant.  And  what,  befides  dedication,  could 
be  fignified,  refpeding  the  child  ?  No  promifes,  it  is 
acknowledged,  were  fealed  to  the  child.  Dedication, 
with  all  the  obligations  and  duties  which  are  implied 
in  it,  it  is  acknowledged  wjis  fignified — All  the  cove- 
nant tranfadlions  which  were  fealed  in  it,  it  is  ac- 
knowledged were  between  God  and  the  parent,  p. 
1 07.  And  it  is  certain,  that  a  parent  could  not  have 
kept  God's  cpvenant  without  the  circumcifion  of  his 
male-child.  It  was,  therefore,  in  its  nature,  a  com- 
pliance with  the  covenant,  in  the  parent.  There  was 
a  propriety,  therefore,  in  its  being  joined  with  a  pa- 
rent's own  circumcifion,  as  a  feal  or  fign  of  his  keep- 
ing covenant Dedication  only,  could  be  fignified 

refpeding  the  child ;  for  it  had  no  covenant  rights 
of  its  own,  as  is  frequently  acknowledged. — As  a 
fign  of  the  covenant,  it  mult  wholly  refpeft  the  pa- 
rent J  for  all  the  covenant  tranfadions  implied  in  it, 
were  between  God  and  the  parent.- — This  conclufion 
might  be  formed,  from  the  following  declarations, 
"  Whatever  divine  covenant  there  is  refpeding  the 
"  feed  and  offspring  of  the  righteous,  it  fubfifts  ivhol- 
^'  ly  betwixt  God  and  the  pare?it — No  promifes  what- 
*'  ever  are  made  to  the  child — but,  whatever  prom- 
*'  ifes  there  are,  are  to  the  parent."  p.  90. 

The  foregoing  obfervations  may  ferve,  to  point 
out  the  defign  of  circumcifion,  both  as  adults  and 
infants  were  refpeded.  They  will,  perhaps,  be  fur- 
ther confirmed,  in  a  future  fedion,  concerijing  the 
end  and  defign  of  baptifm. 


n 


SECTION    VIII. 


'ihe  Se£D  rcfpe6tsd  in  the  Ahrahamic  covenant^ or  covc- 
?ia?jt  of  grace  was  a  fpiritual  feed. 

THE  feed  refpecled  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
or  covenant  of  grace,  confifted  cf  thofe,  who 
had  a  title  to  the  good  things  which  were  contained 
in  it.  Should  it  be  admitted,  that  during  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  Abrahamic  and  Mofaic  difpenfations, 
the  feed  did  confiil  of  fuch  only,  as  were  natural  de- 
fcendants  from  Abraham,  yet  it  could  not  be  infer- 
red from  thence,  that  Abraham's  natural  feed  were 
the  feed  refpected  in  the  covenant  j  becaufe,  fome- 
ihing,  over  and  above  being  a  dcfcendant  from  A- 
braham,  was  necelfary  to  conilitute  the  feed.  Chriil*s 
true  feed  will  confift  oi  men^  yet  men,  confidered  as 
men,  cannot  be  called  the  feed  ;  becaufe,  fomething 
over  and  above  being  fimple  men,  is  neceflary  to 
conftitute  the  feed.  The  feed  of  Chrill  and  the  feed 
cf  Abraham  do  confift  of  thofe,  who  have  a  real  title 
to  the  bleffings  of  the  eovcnnnt.  The  apoftle  Paul 
teaches  this  in  exprefs  terms  ;  Rom.  iv.  i6.  "  There- 
fore it  is  of  failb,  that  it  might  be  by  grace,  to  the  end 
the  promife  might  be  fure  to  all  the  feed  ;  not  to 
that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  alfo  which  is 
of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  zfjjo  is  the  father  of  us  all.** 
According  to  the  apoiile,  the  feed  under  every  dif- 
penfation,  confifls  of  thofe,  who  have  a  fure  title  to 
the  promifes,  Befides,  it  i^  conceded,  p.  45,  that, 
*'  Whatever  bellings  were  laid  up  in  the  promifes  for 
*'  Abraiiam,  were  equally  laid  up  for  his  feed.-~^ 
"  Whatever  fecurity  there  was,  that  the  Lord  v/ould 
"  be  Abraham's  God  ;  there  was  the  fame  that  he 
'•  would  be  the  God  of  his  feed.  The  promifes  were 
"•  not  fmgly  to  Abraham,  but,  they  were  to  him  and 
"  tiis  feed."  If  this  be  the  cafe,  then  the  feed  have 
the  fame  intereft   and  title  to  the  promifes,  and  the 


fame  feciirity  of  the  good  things  proniifed,  which 
Abraham  had.  Such  and  fuch  only,  therefore,  as 
h?.ve  that  title  and  fecurity  which  Abraham  had,  can 
be  conlidered  as,  the  feed.  The  covenant  confiders 
and  rejpefts  fuch  as  the  true  feed.  But,  had  all  the 
natural  feed  of  Abraham,  and  have  all  the  natural 
feed  of  believers,  the  fame  title  to  and  the  fame  fecu- 
rity of  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant,  which  Abraham 
had  !  It  is  granted  and  exprefsly  affirmed,  that  they 
have  no  other  rights  than  the  children  of  unbelievers, 
'till  God  fliall  beftow  converting  grace  upon  them, 

p.  1 08. It  appears,  from  the  words  of  the  apoflle 

Paul,  and  from  the  preceding  quotation,  that  the  feed 
refpecled  in  the  covenant,  confifts  of  fuch  and  fuch 
only,  who  have  as  good,  or  as  fure  a  title  as  Abra- 
ham had,  to  the  bleliings  promifed  and  fecured  in 
the  covenant. 

It  remains,  therefore,  to  point  out,  what  that  is 
which  gives  any  one  a  fure  title  to  the  promifes.  If 
it  can  be  determined,  what  il?at  is  which  does  give  a 
fure  title  to  the  promJfes,  it  can  be  determined,  with 
certainty,  of  whom  the  feed  confifls — who  belong  to 
it  and  are  refpecled  as  fuch."  It  is  certain,  that  being 
a  child  of  Abraham  according  to  the  fiefh,  or  a  child 
of  any  other  behever,  never  did  give  a  title  to  the 
covenant,  or  mark  any  one  as  the  feed ;  for  this  is 
exprefsly  pfferted  ;  p.  16.  And  it  is  alfo  faid,  that 
fuch  have  no  more  rights  than  the  children  of  unbe- 
lievers, p.  108.  And,  in  the  preceding  feclion  it  was 
fiiovvn,  that  perfonal  believers  only,  have  a  fure  title 
to  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant.  And  it  is  alfo  con- 
ceded, "  That  there  is  no  promife  that  the  Lord  will 
be  a  God  to  any  but  believers."  p.  15.  a 

What  will  be  further  attempted,  in  this  feftipn,, 
will  be,  to  make  it  evident,  that  faith  in  Chrift  is  tkaf 
v.'hich  alone  conneds  with  thebleffing  of  the  cove- 
nant, and  eftablifhesthat  title  to  them,  which  Abra- 
ham had  ;  and  fo  that  believers  conftitute  the  feed, 
which  the  covenant  rcfpetts. — That  the  feed  rcfpe^b- 


79 

ed  in  the  covenant,  therefore,  is  z.fpiriUial  and  not  a 
natural  feed.  That  this  is  the  cafe  appears  from  the 
following  confiderations. 

I.  If  faith  were  not  neceffary,  to  the  enjoyment  of 
a  title  to  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant,  and  to  confti- 
tute  the  feed,  then  unbelievers  might  have,  the  fame 
fecurity  of  God  for  their  God,  which  Abraham   had. 

If  the  promife  is  "  made  Jure  to  all  the  fced^^  aild 
if  the  feed  have  the  fame  title  and  fecurity  of  the  blef- 
fings of  the  covenant,  vi^hich  Abraham  had,  either 
the  feed  muft  confift  of  believers,  and  fo  be  afpiritu- 
al  feed  ;  or  otherwife  unbelievers  may  have  z.fure  title 
to  pardon  and  falvation  ;  even  as  fure  a  title  as  that 
which  Abraham  had.  But,  is  that  the  language  ei- 
ther of  the  oldTeftament  or  the  new  ?  If  that  were 
the  cafe,  why  does  the  apoftle  Paul  exprefs  himfclf  in 
the  following  manner  ?  "  They  ivhicb  are  of  faith, 
the  fame  are  the  children  of  Abraham — They  which  be 
of  FAiTFi  are  bleffed  ivitb  faithfid  Abraham,  Te  are 
all  the  children  of  God  by  YM-Yu  J  Gal.  iii.  7,  9,  26. 
If  unbelievers  may  have,  as  good  a  title  to  and  as  firm 
a  fecurity  of  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant  as  Abra- 
ham had,  why  did  Chrift  commiilionate  his  difciples 
to  go  and  preach,  "  He  that  believcth  not  jhall  he 
damned!" 

1?  no  unbeliever,  whether  a  natural  defcendant 
from  Abraham  or  not,  can  have  a  fure  title  to  the 
bleffings  of  the  covenant,  even  as  fure  a  title  as  Abra- 
ham  had,  then  it  will  follow,  as  a  certain  confequence, 
that  believers  alone  do  conflitute,  and  are  refpeded 
as  the  feed  ;  and  confequently,  that  the  feed  refpect- 
ed  in  the  covenant  is  a  fpiritual  feed. 

II.  That  the  feed  refpetted,  in  the  covenant  of 
j^race,  is  a  believing  or  fpiritual  feed  is  evident,  as  A- 
braham  himfelf  became  entitled  to  the  bleffings  of  the 
covenant,  by  faith. 

The  feed  have  the  fame  title,  to  the  bleffings  of  the- 
covenant,  which  Abraham  had  ;  aiid,  if  Abraham's 
title  took  place,  through  faith  and  on  no  other  condi- 


8o 

tion,  it  may  be  fafely  concluded,  that  believers  only 
conflitute  the  feed,  or  are  refpe£led  as  fuch.  It  is  not 
to  be  fuppofed,  that  faith  was  requifite  to  fecure  cov-^ 
enant-blefTmgs  to  Abraham,  and  not  to  his  pofterity 
— that  there  were  different  conditions  of  the  covenant 
prefcribed  for  Abraham,  from  thofe  which  were  pre- 
fcribed  for  othe"l-s<  That  Abraham's  title  took  place^ 
through  faith,  cannot  be  doubted ;  and  that  the  fame 
thing  is  requifite,  to  conftitute  other  perfons  his  feed, 
IS  as  certain.  "  They  which  be  of  faith  are  bleffed 
with  faithful  Abraham,  They  ivhich  are  of  faith  the 
fame  are  the  children  of  Abraham^'  Gal.  iii.  6,  o. 
As  it  was  the  faith  of  Abraham,  which  entitled  him 
to  the  promifes,  and  as  it  is  faith  which  entitles  oth- 
ers to  them,  and  conftitutes  them  his  children^  and 
introduces  them  to  a  title  to  the  blefhngs  of  the  cov- 
nant,  it  will  follow  that  believers  are  the  feed  refpec- 
ted  in  the  covenant,  and  that  the  feedj  of  confeqUence, 
is  a  fpiritual  feed. 

III.  The  fame  thing  appears,  from  hence,  as  the 
natural  feed  of  Abraham  were  not,  as  fuch,  confid^r-* 
ed  as  the  feed  refpefted  in  the  covenant.  That  is, 
whatever  refpe£t  there  was  to  Abraham*s  natural  off- 
fpring,  in  the  covenant  God  made  with  him,  it  is  cer- 
tain, that  it  did  not  conftitute  all  his  natural  offspring 
the  feed. — IJIomael,  who  was  Abraham's  child,  was 
not  confidered  as  having  any  title  to  the  promifes, 
and  was  not  refpeded  in  the  covenant.  This  appears 
from  Abraham's  interceffion,  on  his  behalf.  "  O 
that  IfhrnaelmightHve  before  thee.  And  God  faid, 
Sarah  thy  wife  fhall  bear  thee  a  fon,  indeed  ;  and  thou 
fhalt  call  his  name  Ifaac  and  /  ivill  eflablijb  my  cove- 
nant with  hi?7i^for  an  everlqfling  covenant  and  with 
his  feed  after  him.  As  for  Ijhmael^  I  have  heard  thee. 
Behold  I  have  bis/fed  him  and  will  make  him  fruitful^ 
and  will  multiply  him  exceedingly.  Twelve  princes  Jhall 
he  beg'et,  and  I  will  make  him  a  great  nation.  But  my 
COVENANT  zuill  I  e/iablijio  with  Isaac.  Gen.  xvih* 
1 8 — 21     In  God's  reply  to  Abraham,  he   does   not 


8i 

iay,  that  he  cjiablijhcs  hh  covenant  with  JJhmael  ;  but 
he  does  fay,  that  he  eilablilhes  his  covenant  with  Jfaac^ 
in  difh'ndion  from  Ilhmael.  He  fays,  that  he  will 
blefs  JJhmael,  by  rendering  him  fruitful,  &c.  It  is 
evident,  from  the  whole  tenor  and  complexion  of  the 
declaration,  that  Iflimael  was  not  rcfpefted,  in  the 
promife,  as  one  of  the  feed,  wiio  fliould  inherit  the 
prpmifes. — In  my  former  inquiry  this  was  introdii- 
ced,  with  a  defign  to  iliow  that  circumcifion,  as  in- 
fants were  rcfpedcd,  was  not  intended  as  a  token, 
that  fuch  infants  were  in  covenant  ;  becaufe,  Ifhmael 
was  circumcifed  as  well  as  Ifaac,  when  it  was  declar- 
ed, at  the  fame  time,  that  Ifl'mael  was  not  refpedted 
in  the  covenant.*  The  argument  was  not  defigned 
to  fhow,  that  God,  in  the  difpenfation  of  his  covenant, 
had  not  fome  fpecial  defigns  refpei^ing  Abraham's 
natural  feed  ;  particularly  that  part  of  it,  which  def- 
cended  from  the  loins  of  Ifaac,  Jacob,  he.  But, 
that  Abraham's  natural  pofterity,  as  fuch,  were  not 
refpedled  in  the  covenant,  nor  were  circumcifed  in  to- 
ken of  their  covenant-ftanding.  This  it  was  fuppo- 
fed  would  be  evident,  from  the  confideration,  that  a 
part  of  his  natural  pofterity  were  excluded,  as  in  the 
cafe  of  lilimael.  This  argument,  it  is  believed,  is  a 
conclufive  one,  nolwithllanding  the  objections  which 
have  been  made  to  it. It  is  faid,  byway  of  objec- 
tion, "  It  by  no  means  apperirs,  that  Iflimael  was  ex- 
cluded from  the  promife  which  God  made  to  Abra- 
ham. We  find — the  fame  exprelFions  are  ufed  rela- 
tive to  bis  death,  as  to  the  death  of  Abraham  j  viz. 
^'^  He  was  ^aibered  to  Jjjs  people.**  To  which  it  may 
be  fufficient  to  reply,  i .  Were  it  true,  that  Iflimael 
was  not  refpeded  as  one  of  the  feed,  becaufe  he  was 
a  natural  defeendant  from  Abraham,  yet,  li  he  ever 
became  a  believer  he  might  inherit  the  eflfential  blef- 
ilngs  of  the  covenant.     Although  it   was  God*s   de- 


Scc  my  Inquiry,  p.;ij  ;;. 

L 


82 

fign,  to  colleft  a  church  from  the  poflerity  of  Abra- 
ham, yet  other  nations,  which  were  uot  refpefted  in 
the  promife,  were  not  excluded  from  the  blefllngs  of 
the  covenant,  in  cafe  ihey  fliould  own  the  God  of  If- 
rael  as  their  God  ;  as  is  evident  from  Exodus  xii.  48,. 
4g»  If  it  were  the  cafe,  therefore,  that  lihmael  did 
die  a  faint,  it  would  be  no  real  objedion  to  the  argu- 
ment. 

2.  It  may  be  afted,  whether  it  appears,  that  God 
did,  in  fact,  eftablifh  his  covenant  with  JJhmael  and 
his  feed,  as  he  did  w'lih.  Jjaac  and  his  feed  ? 

The  anfwer  muft  be,  that  it  does  not  appear  ;  but 
it  is  evident,  on  the  contrary,  that  God  did  eflabhfh 
his  covenant  with  Ifaac,  in  diftinftion  from  IflmiaeJ. 
How  can  it  be  faid  then,  "that,  "  There  is  no  evidence 
that  JJJjmael  was  not  blefled  with  faithful  Abraham,  as- 
really  as  Ifaac  ?'* 

Again  ;  does  it  appear,  that  God  had  the  fame 
refpeft  to  lihrnael's  offspiing,  that  he  had  to  the  oif- 
fpring  of  Ifaac  ?  Concerning  Iflimael,  including  his 
pofterity,  it  was  previoufly  declared  "  He  'will  be  a 
zvild  ?nan,  his  hatid  will  be  againji  e'vcry  man,  a7id  every 
marl's  h mid  againji  him.**  Gen.  xvi-  12.  And  the 
apofllePaul,  Gal.  iv,  29 — 31,  confiders  Iflimael  and 
his  poflerity,  as  reprefentatives  of  the  enemies  of 
Chrift  and  his  church.  Were  Ifnmael  and  his  pof- 
terity  refpeclcd  as  the  Deople,  in  whom  the  promifes, 
which  God  made  to  Abraham  were  to  be  accom- 
pliihed  ?  Let  fads  determine.  Was  the  faviour  to 
proceed  from  the  loins  of  lilimael  ?  Was  the  poflerity 
of  Iflimael  ever  defigned  to  inherit  Canaan  ?  Was  it 
the  defign  of  God  to  maintain  his  Church,  in  the^anio 
ily  of  Iflimael  ?  This  prcmife,  of  maintaining  a  church 
in  Abraham's  family,  is  fuppofed  to  be  the  promifej, 
which  comprehended  Abraham's  natural  offspringjin 
fuch  a  fenfe,  as  to  render  it  proper  and  fuitable,  that 
his  males  fliould  be  circumcifed,  in  token  of  their  in- 
tereft  in  the  covenant.  But  it  is  as  evident,  tl:at 
God  had  no  view  to  Ifhmael  and  his  poflerity,  in   hi* 


promife  to  fupport  a  church  in  the  family  of  Abra- 
ham, as  that  he  had  no  refped:  to  them,  as  the  peoulej 
who  fliould  inherit  Canaan.  The  fact  is,  God  never 
defigned  to  include  Ifiiniael  and  his  pofterity,  in  ei. 
therofthofe  promifcs  ;  and  accordingly  the  iulfil- 
ment  of  tl^Cpromifes  never  extended  to  them.  But, 
on  the  contrary,  agreeable  to  the  preditlion  which 
was  publiflied,  concerning  Ilhrn^el  and  his  pofcriry, 
they  have,  through  each  fuccelTive  generation,  been 
under  the  influence  of  a  fpirit,  fo  oppofed  to  the  law 
and  the  gofpel,  as  has  led  them,  to  lift  up  their  hands 
againit  every  man.  It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  Ifh- 
mael  and  his  pofterity  v/ere  not  refpeded  as  Ifaac  was, 
in  the  promifes  which  were  made  to  Abraham. 

It  has  been  further  faid,  refpecling  Abraham's  im- 
portunity, on  the  behalf  of  Ifhmaei,  "  The  Lord 
*'  (hewed  favour  to  Ilhm-ael,  becaafe  he  was  Abra- 
*«  ham's  fon  ;  and  for  this  reafon  the  feal  of  the  cov- 
"  enant,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  feed 
"  after  thee"  was  fet  upon  him.  Surely  when  the 
"  Deity  made  Ifhmael  an  objed  '  of  peculiar  favour 
*'  and  bkffing  becaufe  he  ivas  Abraham's  Jleed,  this 
*'  fame  Ilhmael  can,  \yitli  very  little  appearance,  of 
"  reafon,  be  produced  as  an  inftance  in  proof  that  the 
*•  feed,  in  the  promife  had  no  relation  to  Abraham's 
*'  natural  offspr'ni'^.**  p.  49. 

In  reply,  it  may  be  obferved,  in  general,  tliat  Ifh- 
mael was  not  produced  as  an  example  to  prove,  that 
God's  promife  to  Abraham  had  "  no  relation  to  A- 
braham's  natural  offspring  j"  but  to  fnew,  that  it 
had  no  relation  to  Ilhmael  and  his  polterity  j  and 
confequently,  that  it  was  not  a  natural  oflspring  which 
was  refpeded  as  the  leed :  and  therefore,  that  infant 
circnmcifioii,  which  was  extended  to  ifnmael,  did  not 
lignify  or  import,  that  the  infant  circiimcifed  was  in 
covenant.!     In  the  above  quotation  it  is  faid,  "  The 


t  Had  Illimad  been  relpeded,  in  the  nromiu',  : »  Ifaac  Vva.>,  God 
yas  under  the  fame  obligations  to  fuppnrt  religion  araonrr  his  porter- 
Uy,atiamong  the  pafltTity  of  Ilr.sc— The  covtiK^ist  fccurld   jincicus 


v>4 

Lsrd Jkewed favour  to  Iftjmad  hecaufe  he  fvas  Ab'ra- 
haul's  feed;  and  for  this  reafm  the feal  of  the  covenant ; 
J  ivill  be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  feed  ^  vjas  fei  upon  him.'** 
Upon  which  it  may  be  inquired  ; — 

I.  How  did  God  lliew  favour  to  Iflimael  ?  Were 
the  bleffings  he  conferred  on  him  the  great'  blefliigs 
of  the  covenant  ?  Why,  then,  was  that  di'fcriminat- 
ing  claufe  added,  "  But  my  covenant  will  I  eftablifh 
with  Ifaac  ?''  Is  it  not  diredly  oppofed,  to  the  maniferl: 
import  of  the  declaration  made,  concerning  Ifaac,  to 
fuppofe  that  Ifhmaei  was  refpeded  in  the  covenant, 
in  the  fenfe  in  which  Ifaac  was  refpeded  ?  There  is 
no  pretext  for  faying,  that  Iflimael  had  the  bleifmgs 
of  the  covenant  bcftowed  on  him  except  what  arifes 
from  God's  promifmg  him  worldly  profperity.  If 
promifes  of  fuch  bleilings  be  an  evidence  of  being  pe- 
culiarly refpeded  in  the  covenant,  molt  certainly, 
fuch  men  as  are  in  fad,  profperous  in  worldly  mat- 
ters, have  a  brilliant  evidence  of  an  intereil  in  the 
covenant. 

2.  Let  it  be  inquired  further,  whether  it  be  true, 
that  the  reafon,  why  God  directed  the  feal  of  the  cov- 
enant to  be  fet  on  Iflimael  was,becaufe  God  had  pro- 
nounced thofe  favours  on  Ifhmaei,  in  confequence  of 
Abraham's  importunity  ? Was  not  Abraham,  di- 
rected to  circumcife  his  male-children,  and  Ifhmaei 
among  the  reft,  before  thofe  temporal  bleflings  were 
conferred  on  Ifhmaei  ?  He  certainly  was,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  Gen.  xvii.  lo,  i2.  It  was  not  for  "  that 
reafon"  that  Abraham  was  directed  to  circumcife  Ifli- 
mael. Had  thofe  blefiings  never  been  giv^en,  Abra- 
ham mufl  have  circumcifed  Ifhmaei,  in  obedience  to 
a  previous  command.  The  favours  bellowed,  did 
not  comprehend  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant,  Iwill 
he  thy  Gcd ;  nor  did  Abraham  circumcife  him,  be- 
caufe  God  had  pronounced  thofe  temporal  blefTmgg 

qualifications  to  Iflimaers  poftei  i:  y  as  it  did  to  Ifaac's.  But  notliing 
c^ri  be  more  evident,  than  that  noneofthefc  things  weie  true,  rtl- 
peding  IlhmacI  and  his  p«ftcrity. 


on  him  ;  for  he  was  exprefsly  direcled  to  do  it,  be- 
fore any  fuch  bleiilngs  were  given. 

3.  Was  circumcilion,  as  Iftimael  was  refpedled,  a 
feal  of  the  covenant,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and 

thy  feed  after  thee  ?" If  it  was,  it  was  in  the  ob- 

jedor's  view  God's  feal.  God  thereby  engaged  to  be 
the  God  of  Ifhrnael  and  his  natural  feed,  in  the  fame 
fenfe,  that  he  engaged  to  be  the  God  of  Abraham 
and  his  natural  feed.  So  thatlfliinael  and  his  poifer- 
ity  mult  be  interelled,  in  the  fime  promife,  in  which 
Abraham  and  his  natural  feed  were  interelled.  The 
promife  of  Canaan — of  having  a  Church  maintained 
among-  them — of  a  defcent  of  religion  from  parent  to 
child ;  aad  of  fuch  gracious  qualifications  as  were 
n^celfary  to  fupnort  a  Church  among  them,  &c.  nmfl 
refpetl  them.  But,  God  never  fealed  any  fuch  prom- 
ifes  refpecling  Ifhrnael  and  his  poilerity  ;  or  at  leall,  if 
he  did,  he  never  carried  them  into  execution. 

FiiOM  thefc  obfervations,  it  is  evident,  that  Illimael 
was  not  refpecled  as  the  feed,  in  the  covenant  which 
God  made  with  Abraham ;  even  in  that  remote  fenfe 
in  which  Ifaac  and  his  natural   poderity  were  ;  yet 

he  was  circum.cifed. Similar    obfeivations  might 

be  made,  refpecling  Efau.  hut  it  is  unneceflary  to 
enlarge  further  on  this  argument. 

4.  It  may  be  concluded,  that  the  feed  refpecled  in 
the  promife  made  to  Abraham  was  not  his  natural 
feed,  f\-om  the  command  given  to  Abraham  to  cir- 
cumcife  his  fervants. 

That  there  was  fuch  a  command,  dees  not  admut 
cf  a  doubt.  Bur,  if  Abraham's  natural  feed  was  the 
feed  refpecled  in  the  promife,  his  fervants  could  nor. 
have  been  circumcifed,  as  belonging  to  the  feed. 
1  hey  either  mull  have  been  circumcifed  for  fome 
other  reafon,  than  to  denote  they  weie  the  feed  ;  or, 
if  they  were  circum.cifed  as  a  token  or  their  being  the 
feed,  it  will  be  evident,  that  Abraham's  natural  feed, 
as  fuch,  was   not  the  feed  refpeded  in  the  covenant. 

It  is  infifled  on,  p.  50,  51,  52,   that  Abraham's 


86 

fervants  were  not  mere  patients  in  circumcifion ;  but 
were  active  and  "  received  and  praftifed  circumcifion 
upon  the  fame  principles  that  Abraham  himfelf  did.'* 
If  this  were  the"  cafe,  then  they  had  a  title  to  the 
prcmiles,  which  was  as  valid  as  Abraham's  title; 
and  fo  were  as  certainly  the  feed,  as  were  ilbraham's 

natural  offspring. It  will  avail  nothing  to  fay,  that 

Abraham's  fervants  were  fuppofed  to ,  believe,  and  fo 
by  faith  became  enrolled  among  the  feed  j  for  that 
would  fuppofe,  that  believers  of  every  nation  were 
the  feed,  as  well  as  the  believers  of  Abraham's  natu- 
ral pofterity.  It  is  faid,  that  Abraham's  natural 
feed,  were  not,  really,  the  feed,  except  through  faith. 
If  other  men,  who  were  not  Abraham's  natural  off- 
fpring,  even  his  fervants,  might  alfo  be  received  and 
treated  as  the  feed,  upon  the  fame  condition,  then  the 
feed,  in  reality,  confifted  of  believers,  whether  they 
were  Jews  or  Gentiles. Befides,  if  Abraham's  fer- 
vants received  circumcifion,  upon  the  fame  princi- 
ples that  A.braham  did  j  then  their  feed  muft,  on  the 
principles  of  the  objeftor,  be  refpecled  as  the  feed, 
equally  with  Abraham's  natural  feed.  It  is  iniifted 
on,  as  appears  from  many  quotations  already  made, 
that  circumcifion  fealed  a  covenant,  on  God's  part, 
refpeciing  the  natural  feed  of  the  adult,  and  fecured 
faith  and  falvation  to  his  feed,  on  the  condition  of 
his  faithfulnefs ;  and,  that  Abraham  pradifcd  cir- 
cumcifion on  this  principle.  If  Abraham's* fervants 
practifed  upon  the  fame  principle,  and  that  by  divine 
appointment,  then  their  natural  feed  were  as  much 
relpeded  as  the  feed,  as  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham. 
———On  no  principle,  therefore,  whether  A-braham's 
fervants  were  ^gerJs  or  patients^  was  Abraham's  nat- 
ural feed  the  feed  refpecred  j^  the  coven?vnt.  On  the 
principle  of  then  being  agents,  and  by  faith  becom- 
ing the  feed,  it  is  evident,  that  it  was  believing  which 
t<iiirin^:,iiifned  the  feed  j  and  confequently  that  a  fpir- 
ituai  feed  was  meant,  by  the  term  ieed,  as  ufed  in  the 
promife  to  Abraiiam. 


5.  The  facied  fcriptures,  in  the  moft  explicit  man- 
ner, teach,  that  the  feed  refpedled  in  the  covenant 
and  promife,  is  a  believing  and  fpiritual  feed. 

The  prefent  inquiry  is  not,  whether  the  feed  which 
fhall  inherit  the  promifes,  will  be  felefted  from  the 
natural  feed  of  Abraham  and  of  other  believers ;  for 
it  is,  on  all  hands,  conceded  that  a  perfon  may  be  a 
natural  defcendant  from  Abraham,  or  any  other  bfe- 
Hever,  and  yet  not  belong  to  th*at  feed,  which  ihall 
inherit  the  promifes.  It  muft,  therefore,  be  conced- 
ed, that  it  muft  be  fomething  over  and  above  being  the 
offspring  of  Abraham  or  any  other  believer,  which 
compofes,  marks  and  diftinguifhes  the  feed.  The 
prefent  queftion  is  this,  what  that  is,  which  mark« 
and  diftinguifhes  the  feed  ?  That  it  \%  -perfonal  charac- 
ter and  not  birth  or  parentage,  I  fhall  now  attempt  to 
fiiew.  Or  to  be  more  explicit,  that  repentance  and 
faith  are  the  diftinguifhing  charaSeriflics  of  the  true 
feed.  Indeed  it  is  faid,  to  be,  "  on  all  hands,  conce- 
ded that  there  is  no  promife  that  the  Lord  will  be  a 
God  to  any  but  hehcvers^  And  it  is  prefumed  if 
will  not  be  denied,  that  the  Lord  will  be  the  God  oi  all 
fuch  as  do  believe.  Believing,  therefore,  muft  be  th« 
diflinguifliing  charaQeriflic  of  the  feed.  The  feed, 
on  thefe  conceffions,  muft  extend  to  all  believers,  and 
can  extend  no  further.  Mankind,  confidered  collec- 
tively, are  the  race  of  beings,  out  of  which,  this  feed 
is  to  be  col]e6led  ;  or,  if  the  fame  might  be  faid  of 
any  particular  nation,  yet,  after  all,  the  feed  confifts 
of  believers  and  of  thf:m  only.  This  is'a  plain  doc- 
trine of  the  gofpel.  It  might  naturally  be  expefted, 
that  the  gofpel  would  be  clear  and  explicit,  on  io  im- 
portant a  point.  The  Old  Teftament  reprefentations 
were  clouded,  with  types  and  figures  \  but,  as  the 
gofpsi  was  written  alter  the  principal  and  moft  Im- 
portant character,  which  was  refpefted,-  in  all  the 
types  and  figures  of  the  Old  Teftament,  was  introdu- 
ced, there  was  reafon  to  expeft,  a  more  clear  and  full 
exhibition  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  of  ^zfeed 


88 

which  will  heir  its  bleffings,  than  had  ever  been  giv- 
en. And  the  gofpel  is  as  clear,  on  this  important 
fubjed,  as  could  reafonably  be  wiHied.  And  a  title 
to  the  promifes  is  iiniverfaily  put,  on  the  condition  of 
repentance  znd  faith.  The  tender,  of  the  bleflings  of 
the  covenant,  is  made  on  that  condition.  The  Jews 
flattered  themfelves,  of  being  the  favorites  of  God, 
becaufe  they  defccnded  from  Abraham,  or  had  Abra- 
ham for  a  father.  But  they  were  taught,  not  to  ex- 
peft  to  receive  the  bleffings  promifed  to  Abraham, 
Ihort  of  having  the  faith  and  doing  the  works  of  A- 
braham.  The  doctrine  which  Chrift  taughc  his  dif- 
ciples  was,  "  He  that  believeth — Ihall  be  faved,  but 
he  that  believeth  not  fhali  be  damned.'*  The  Jews 
faid  to  Chrift,  "  Abraham  is  our  father"  Chrift  re- 
plies, *'  If  ye  were  Ahrahair^s  children^  ye  would  do  the 
Vforki  of  Abraham.**  John,  viii.  39.  Which  teaches 
and  implies,  that  the  children,  or  feed  of  Abraham, 
had  always  confifted  of  thofe,  who  did  his  works  ; 
and  not  merely  of  his  natural  feed.  It  is  obfervable, 
the  defcription  of  the  feed,  given  by  the  apoftles  al- 
ways extended  to  believing  Jews  and  Gentiles.  Faith 
conftitutes  a  Gentile,  one  of  Abraham's  feed,  juft  as 
it  did  a  Jew.  Hence  an  apoftle  obferves,  "  We  be- 
Iteve,  that  through  the  grace  of  our  Lord  fefus  Chrifi, 
ive  fJmll  he  faved  even  aj  they.**  Adls,  xv.  1 1.  The 
only  way  in  which  the  Gentiles  might  be  faved,  or 
fiiare  in  the  blelTmgs  of  the  covenant,  was,  moft  cer- 
tainly, by  faith.  And  if  they  were  faved,  and  parti- 
cipated of  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant,  as  the  Jews 
did,  then  faith  always  did  diftinguifti  and  charader- 
ize  the  fficd,  refpefted  in  the  promifes. 

That  believers,  or  a  fpirltual  feed,  was  the  feed 
refpe£ted  in  the  covenant,  is  very  explicitly  taught  in 
Rom.  ix.  7,  8.  "  Neither,  becaufe  they  are  the  feed 
of  Abraham,  are  they  all  children  ^  but  in  Ifiacjhall 
thy  feed  be  called ;  that  is,  they  which  are  the  children 
of  the  ^Q^^,  ihefe  are  not  the  children  of  God',  but  the 
children  of  the  promife  are  counted  for  the  feed**     It 


§9 

h  agreed,  that  the  apoftk  ufes  the  term  feed  m  two 
fenfes.  He,  in  one  cafe,  ufes  the  term,  to  point  out 
the  natural  offspring  of  Abraham.  In  the  other  cafe, 
he  ufes  the  term  to  point  out  thofe,  who  fliall  inherit 
the  promifes ;  which  is  the  feed  in  quedion.  And 
the  apoftle  exprefsly  fays,  that  the  children  of  the Jle/Ij 
are  not  the  children  of  God,  and  are  not  counted  for 
i/jiit  feed,  which  fliall  inherit  the  promifes.  It  is  alfo 
agreed  in,  as  is  alledged  p.  15,  1 6,  that  the  apoftle, 
in  the  place  juft  now  quoted,  is  anfwering  an  objec- 
tion, which  the  Jews  made  to  their  being  reje6"ed  ; 
and  that  the  objection  was  grounded  on  the  idea, 
that  the  promifes  had  a  peculiar  refpeft  to  them,  as 
being  the  natural  feed  of  Abr'\ham.  And  the  Jews, 
doubtlefs,  put  fuch  a  conflruclion  on  the  promifes, 
as  led  them  to  conclude,  that  God  was  under  cove- 
nant obligations  to  fave  tiiem  ;  and  that  they  were 
the  feed,  merely,  as  being  natural  defcendants  from 
Abraham.  The  apofble,  however,  does  not  admit 
their  conftrudion  of  the  promifes. — -iie  acknowledg- 
es, that  the  promifes  did  refped  them  in  fuch  a  fenfe, 
as  that  the  difpcnfation  of  them,  and  of  the  law  did 
appertain  to  them  ;  or  in  one  word,  fo  as  to  confine 
that  difpenfation  of  the  covenant  to  them.  The  apof- 
tle  then  explains  the  whole  matter  and  fays,  "  They 
are  not  all  Ijrael  zabich  are  of  Ifrciel."  That  is,  it  was 
never  God's  defign  to  confer  the  bleffings  of  the  cov- 
enant, on  all  Abraham's  natural  feed.  Therefore  it 
could  not  be  faid,  if  God  fhould  call  them  away,  that 
the  word  had  taken  none  efteft.  He  then  explains 
his  meaning  thus ;  "  Neither  becaufe  they  are  the  feed 
(the  natural  feed)  rf  Abraham^  are  they  all  ehildren,'* 
That  is  to  fay,  although  God  had  promifed  Abraham, 
to  treat  particularly  with  his  natural  feed,  and  to  raife 
up  from  them  a  Church  and  people  for  himfelf;  yet, 
that  does  not  imply,  that  all  his  natural  feed  were  re* 
fpeded  as  children^  who  fhould  inherit  the  promife. 
But  it  is  faid,  «  in  Ifaacfkall  thy  feed  bs  called^  !;■ 
M 


go 

thefe  words,  the  appftle  direflly  fhews,  that  God*s 
eleding  Ifiac  as  heir,  in  whom  the  feed  Ihould  be 
called,  was  an  evidence,  that  the  promife  did  not  re- 
fpe£l  the  whole- natural  feed  of  Abraham  j  but  fome 
of  a  peculiar  defcription.  "  That  is,  they  which  are 
the  children  ef  the  fleJJo  (natural  defcendarits  from  A- 
braham)  thefe  are  not  the  children  of  Ged  (thofe  who 
have  a  title  to  the  promife)  but  the  children  of  the 
promife  are  counted  for  the  feed  ;"  that  is  true  believ- 
ers. Therefore,  none  but  believers  could  claim  an 
interell  in  the  promifes.  Confequently,  on  account 
of  unbelief,  they  might  be  and  in  fad  were,  "  broken, 
off.'*  But  if  it  were  the  cafe,  that  Abraham's  natural- 
feed  were  the  feed,  in  any  fenfe  which  did  not  imply 
faith,  they  could  not  be  "  broken  off,'*  for  their  un- 
belief. If  faith  had  not  been  the  condition  of  tlie 
promifes,  and  fo  believers  the  feed,  unbelief  could  not, 
with  any  propriety,  tiave  been  afhgned  as  a  reafon  for 
their  rejeftion  ;  or  have  been  a  jullification  of  Code's 
dlfpenfation,  in  cafting  them  off.  But  this  is  thefole 
reafon,  which  is  offered,  for  the  rejeftion  of  the  Jews, 
Becaufe  of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  Rom.  xi. 
20.  The  apoftle,  therefore,  in  anfwering  the  objec- 
tion againfl  the  rejedion  of  the  Jews,  proceeds  on  the. 
very  idea,  that  behevers  were  the  feed  refpedled  in 
the  promife,  in  diftindion  from  Abraham's  natural 
feed,  which  makes  it  evident,  that  the  feed  refpeded 
was  a  fpiritual  feed. 

That  the  feed  refpecled  in  the  promife  made  to  A- 
braham,  v^'as  a  believing  and  fpiritual  feed  "is  further 
taught,  in  Galatians,  chapter  iii. 

From  many  things,  contained  in  this  chapter,  it  be- 
comes exceedingly  evident,  that  a  believing  or  fpirit- 
ual feed  was  infiended  by  the  feed,  mentioned  in  the 
promife  made  to  Abraham.  It  is  faid,  p.  23,  "  That 
"  the  apoftle's  primary  and  great  objeft  (in  the  chap- 
"  ter)  is  to  prove,  that  fmners  of  mankind,  be  they 
"  either  Jews  or  Gentiles,  are  juftified  by  faith.  A- 
"  biaham  himfelf^  in  whom  all  nations  were  to  br 


91 

''  blefled,  became  entitled  to  the  inheritance,  vhich 
"  God  lays  up  for  his  people,  by  faith."  It  believing 
Jews  and  Gentiles  compofe  the  ked,  and  defcribe 
thofe  who  are  entitled  to  the  promifes,  it  will  fcjllow, 
that  believers  mull  be  the  feed,  and  fo  that  a  spiritu- 
al feed  is  intended.  This  not  only  follows,  from  the 
declaration  juft  quoted,  but  from  many  particular 
paffages,  contained  in  the  chapter.  Verfe  7,  the  *a- 
poftle  demands,  "  Know  ye,  therefore^  that  they  winch 
are  #f  faith,  thejame  are  the  children  of  Abraham?" 
In  verfe  9,  he  thus  concludes,  "  So  then,  thc-y  ivhich 
Ijeof'EAiTH,  are  bleffid  ivithfaitbful  Abraham.''  In 
one  verfe  he  fays,  that  they  which  be  of  faith  are 
hleffed  v^-ith  Abraham  ;  and  in  the  other  verfe,  that 
they  are  the  children  of  Abraham.  It  was  the  defign 
of  the  apoftle  to  fliew,  not  only,  that  believers  com- 
pofed  the  feed  then,  but  always  did  ;  an,d  that  the 
naturaloffspringof  Abraham  never  did  compofe  the 
feed.-— This  appears,  from  the  apoftle's  explanation 
of  the  original  promife.  Verfe  16,  "71?  Abrabahi 
and  his  feed  ivere  the  promifes  made.  He  faith  not,  and 
to  SEEDS,  as  of  many  ;  but  as  ofot^u,  and  to  thy  seedJ 
zuhich  is  Christ.'*  Chrift  Jefus,  who  it  is  true,  de- 
fcended  from  Abraham,  is  here  called  the  seed,  to 
which  there  is  a  reference  in  the  promife,  yea,  on 
which  it  terminated.  It  is  granted,  p.  23;  that 
Chrift,  when  called  the  feed,  was  irot  fpoken  of  as  a 
fn^le  perfon.  "  The  import  can  be  no  more  than 
"  this,  that  none  can  inherit  the  bleiTmgs  contained 
"  in  the  promifes,  othervvife  than  by  Chrift,  and  by 
"  being  fo  muted  to  Chrijl,  who  Is  himfelf  the  ko-'X  of 
*'  Abraham,  that  they  alfo  may  be  confidered,  as  A- 
**  braham' s  feed.''  In  this  paffage,!:  is  fully  implied, 
that  by  being  united  to  Chrifi,  men  become  Abra- 
ham's feed,  in  the  fenfe  of  the  promife.  Confequent- 
ly,  that  Abraham's  feed  confifts  of  thofe,  who  arc 
particularly  united  to  Chrift.  It  is  alfo  implied,  that 
when  Chrift  is  fpoken  of  as  the  feed^  it  is  deftgned  to 
comprehend,  in  him,  all  true  believers. And  this 


92 

appears  to  be  the  apoflile's  defign,  from  the  conclufiori 
he  makes  ;  Verle  26 — 29,  "  lor  ye  are  all  ihe  children 
of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  for  as  mayiy  of  you 
as  have  been  baptized  into  Chrifi  have  put  on  Chri/i.—^ 
There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek — there  is  ?ieither  bond 
nor  free- — :there  is  neither  male  7ior  female  ;  for' ye  are 
all  ONE  tn  Chrifi  Jcfus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's  then 
are  ye  Abraham's  i'eed  and  heirs  according  to  the  prom- 
ife."  The  import  of  thefe  words  is  this,  that  believ- 
ing is  that  which  conflitutes  and  charafterizes  the 
feed  of  Abraham,  without  regard  to  nation  or  de- 
fcent— to  fex  or  condition.  No  words  can  more 
clearly  exprefs  the  charaderiftic  of  the  feed,  or  heirs 
of  the  promifes. — -That  the  charaderiflic  of  the  feed 
is  not,  on  the  one  hand,  being  natural  defcendants 
from  Abraham,  or  belonging  to  any  particular  nation 
or  fex,  or  being  freemen  or  flaves  ;  but  on  the  other 
hand,  being  believers  in  Chrift  Jefus. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  evident,  that  however  particu- 
larly God  dealt  with  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham, 
yet,  that  did  not  conftitute  them  the  feed  ;  but  the 
feed  comprehends  believers  of  every  nation  and  age, 
and  believers  only.  Confequently,  the  feed  refpecl- 
ed,  in  the  covenant,  was  a  fpiritual  feed. 

It  being  thus  evident,  that  the  feed,  refpecled  in 
the  covenant,  was  a  believing  and  fpiritual  feed,  this 
fedion  will  be  clofed  with  one  general  remark,  on 
the  impropriety  of  confidering  the  children  of  believ- 
ei-s,  as  being  viftbly  in  covenant,  or  vifible  heirs  of 
the  promifes.  If  it  ht  vifible,  it  muft  appea.  10  be 
the  cafe.  But  what  is  it  which  renders  it  vifMe't 
The  fcriptures  teach,  that  believers  compofe  the  feed, 
and  not  a  mere  natural  offspring.  God  no  where 
fays,  that  natural  defcent  or  parentage  charafterizes 
the  feed,  hut  faith  only.  If  fuch  children  are  vifibly 
the  feed,  they  are  viftbly  fuch,  directly  contrary  lo  the 
declaration  of  God. 


95 


S  E  C  T  !•  O  N    IX. 


The  import  ^;?^  ^^^«,  <?/ infant  circumcifion  and  of 
•'infant  baptifm,  7nore  particularly  confidered ;  and 
objectiGns  anfwered. 

AS  to  the  import  and  clefign  of  circumcifion  and 
baptifm,  as  adults  are  refpedled,  it  is  generally, 
if  not  univerfally  agreed  in,  that  it  is  a  feal  and  token 
of  the  fubjecl*s  interefl  and  title  tothebleffings  of  the 
covenant  of  grace.  Or  a  token  of  faith  and  regene- 
ration— the  wafliing  away  of  fnis,  he. 

The  prefent  inquiry  will,  therefore,  be  confined 
Xo  the  import  and  defign  of  circumcifion  and  bap- 
tifm, ar,  circumeifed  and  baptized  infants  are  refpeiS:- 
ed.  And,  from  what  has  been  obferved,  in  ]the  lafb- 
fedion,  it  mufl  be  evident,  that  the  ordinance  of  cir- 
cumcifion or  of  baptifm,  could  not  be  defigned  to 
import  the  fame  thing,  refpeding  an  infant,  which 
v/as  imported,  in  the  cafe  of  an  adult.  To  the  latter 
it  is  laid,  ''  It  was  God's  feal  of  the  fabjed's  title  to 
eternal  life  ;"  but  the  fame  thing  cannot  be  fealed  to 
an  infant.  This  is,  alfo,  admitted  ;  for  it  is  faid, 
"  Being  children  of  the  fleth  did  not  mark  them  as 
the  feed  to  whom  the  Lord  would  be  a  God.'*  p. 
1 6.  And,  "  The  children  of  believers  are  poliefled  of 
no  other  rights  than  the  children  of  unbelievers."  p. 
1 08.  MllM'it  appears,  from  the  preceding  fection, 
that  infants  do  not  become  the  feed,  and  entitled  to 
the  blelTmgs  of  the  covenant,  by  being  the  natural 
offspring  of  beli-evers.  There  is,  therefore,  no  pro- 
priety in  adminiflering  circumcifion,  or  baptifm  to  an 
infant,  as  a  feal  of  its  title  to  the  bleffings  of  the  cov- 
enant, when  it  has  no  right  or  title  to  them,  as  it  has 
not,  merely,  becaufe  it  is  a  child  of  a  believer.  This 
is  alfo  conceded,  p.  108;  where  it  is  faid,  ^^  Our  ha- 
ving been  thefubjefrs  rf  baptifm  in  infancy,  in  ^Lvhichtve 
were  perfectly  passive,  and  in  which  no  promis* 


94 

Es  were  fealcd  to  us,  &c.  If  it  be  tlie  cafe,  that  in- 
fants have  "  no  right,'*  and  if  baptifm  in  infancy  feals 
"  no  promifcs'*  to  the  infant,  it  certainly  mufl  have 
a  very  different  import,  refpc^ting  an  infant,  from  the 
import  of  it,  refpeding  an  adult.  This  is  a  juft  con- 
fequence,  from  the  conceflions  contained,  in  the  quo- 
tations which  have  now  been  made :  and,  it  is  ac- 
knowledged, to  be  a  juft  confequence,  from  the  fen- 
timent  ellabliflied  in  the  preceding  feftion.  It  is  ac- 
knovi^iedged,  "  If  the  promife  implied  nothing  more, 
*'  than  that  the  Lord  would  be  a  God  to  all  whe 
^'J/jould  kelieve,  in  every  age  and  nation  ;  and  that 
" /^/Z  y?/(;Z>  fiiould  be  reckoned  to  Abraham  as  his 
"  feed,  it  will,  then,  be  manifeft  that  infant  circum- 
"  cifion  was  a  feal  of  no  promife  of  bleffings  on  the 
*'  child  :  and  if  this  be  the  light  in  which  the  fcrip- 
"  tures  truly  lead  us  to  confider  the  fubjeft,  it  will 
"  be  natural  to  fuppofe,  that  infant  baptifm  is  noth- 
"  ing  more  than  a  mark  of  parental  dedication." 
p..  119.  It  is  fubmitted,  whether  the  mofl  fatisfado- 
ry  proof,  of  fuch  an  import  of  the  covenant,  has  not 
been  produced,  in  the  preceding  feclion. 

The  fame  thing  cannot  be  fealsd  to  an  infant,  in 
its  baptifm,  as  is  fealed  to  an  adult,  when  an  adult  is 
the  fubjed:  of  it.  Although  it  is  a  token,  in  the  cafe 
of  an  adult  believer,  of  his  faith  and  pardon,  or  title 
to  eternal  life  ;  yet  it  cannot  feai  any  fuch  title  to 
infants.  This  appears  not  only  from  the  fentiments 
advanced  in  the  foregoing  fedion  ;  but  it  is  equally 
clear  from  the  fentiments  contained  in  the  quotations, 
whieh  have  been  made. 

Having  fhewn,  what  cannot  be  deigned  by  the 
circumcifion  or  baptifm  of  infants,  a  pofitive  anfwer 
to  the  inquiry,  will  now  be  attempted. 

Here  it  may  be  obferved,  that  although  no  titles 
to  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant  can  be  fealed  to  in- 
fants, in  their  circumcifion  or  baptifm,  as  they  have 
no  fuch  titles ;  yet  it  may  ferve  to  fignify  and  feal 
the  parent's   titler,,  or  intereft  in  the  bleffings  of  the 


95 

covenant.  That  it  implies  dedication  on  the  part  of 
the  parent)  no  one  will  dqubt.  It  is  acknowled  that 
"  In  order  that  Chriitian  parents  may  take  hold  of 
the  promifes  of  the  new  covenant — they  mud  cordi- 
ally give  them  (their  children)  up  unconditionally  into 
the  hand  of  God."  p.  loo.  And  it  is  doubtlcfs 
true,  as  is  aflerted,  p.  92,  that,  "  Dedicating  children 
to  God,  agreeably  to  divine  appointment,  implies'a 
folemn  engagement  to  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord."  The  baptifm  of  chil- 
dren may  be  confidered,  therefore,  as  a  public  mark 
and  tcken  of  a  parent's  comphance  with  his  duty, 
in  dedicating  them  to  God.  The  parent  cannot  be 
faid,  to  keep  covenant  with  God,  withput  fuch  a  ded- 
ication of  his  children.— The  baptifm  of  infants  may 
be  confidered,  therefore,  as  having  the  fame  import, 
refpefting  the  parent,  as  his  own  baptifm.  It  may, 
with  propriety,  be  confidered  as  a  public  token  of  his 
keeping  the  covenant  j  and  of  his  engagements  to 
perform  the  duties  it  enjoins.  As  to  the  child,  it 
can  be  a  token  of  no  engagements  or  titles  j  for  it 
makes  no  profeffions,  and  it  has  no  titles.  It  is  ded- 
icated, and  fealed  or  marked  as  fuch,  according  to 
divine  appointment.  Dedication,  therefore,  is  pecul- 
iarly fignified  refpeding  an  infant,  and  that  the  pa- 
rent^ who  dedicates  it,  will  keep  God*s  covenant,  a§ 
he  is  refoeded.  It  would  be  natural  to  conclude, 
that  this  mufl  be  the  defign  and  import  of  infant  bap- 
tifm, from  fome  reprcfentations  which  are  given  of 
the  tranfadions,  although  defignedly  in  oppofition  to- 
fuch  an  idea  of  it.  It  is  faid,  *'  Whatever  divine 
covenant  there  is  refpeding  the  feed  and  olTspiing  of 
of  the  righteous,  it  fuhfifts  ivholly  betwixt  God  and  the 
■parent, — No  promifes  whatever  are  made  to  the  chikU* 
p.  90.  And  "  the  covenant  tranfadion^  when  baptifm 
is  adminiflered  to  infants,  is  wholly  betwixt  God  and 
the  parents.^*  p.  107.  If  it  be  the  cafe,  that  the  cov- 
enant tranfadion  is  wholly  betwixt  God  and  the  pa- 
lentSj  ajid  the  infants  of  believers  have  no  covenant 


9^ 

rights,  then,  fo  far  as  the  baptifni  oi  inrants  is  a  token 
of  the  covenant,  it  mull  refpeft  the  parent's  covenant. 
If  it  fignifiy,  that  any  one  concerned  in  the  tranf- 
aftion,  is  in  covenant  and  entitled  to  covenant  blef- 
fings,  it  mud  fignify  it  refpeding  the  parent,  in  dif- 
tindion  from  the  child.  And  what  confirms  this 
idea  of  the  tranfadlion  is  this ;  that  God  declared  to 
Abraham  at  the  time  infant  circumcifion  was  inltitu- 
ted,  that  iffliould  be  confidered  as  a  token  of  the 
covenant  between  God  and  him :  and  fo  between 
God  and  other  believing  parents,  who  fhould  follow 
his  example,  ;■'  fucceeding  generations.  And  it  is  to 
be  obferved,  that  for  the  lame  reafon  it  fignified  ded- 
icatwn  as  the. child  \v:i3  refpefted,  it  was  a  token  of 
the  parent's  compliance  with  the  covenant,  as  the  a- 
gent. 

But,  although  it  be  thus  evident,  that  infant  bap- 
tifm  is  defigned,  as  a  fign  or  token  of  the  parent's  or 
dedicator's  covenant,  as  the  covenant  is  v.diolly  be- 
twixt God  and  the  parent ;  and  that  as  the  baptized 
infant  is  refpecled,  its  folemn  dedication  and  fepara- 
tion  for  God  is  fignified  ;  yet  fuch  a  concluiion  meets 
with  objedlions,  to  which  it  is  neceifary  to  attend. 

It  may  be  neceifary,  hdwever,  to  m.ake  one  gene- 
ral obfervation  previous  to  anfwering  objeftions.  The 
obfervation  is  this,  that  pofitive  inftitutions  are  of 
fuch  a  nature,  as  that  it  is  impoffible,  in  every  re- 
fpeft,  to  account  for  them,  from  reafon  and  the  na- 
ture of  things.  Difficulties  may,  therefore,  occur, 
which  are  inexplicable  to  men  ;  becaufe  they  cannot 
fee  as  God  fees,  or  enter  into  all  the  reafons  of  the 
divine  conduct,  refpeding  pofitive  injunftions.  How- 
ever, it  is  apprehended,  no  fuch  difficulties  will  oc- 
cur, in  the  following  objedions  to  what  has  been  ad- 
\^anced,  concerning  the  import  and  dengn  of  infant 
baptifm. 

Objection  I.  If  the  account  which  has  been  giv* 
en  of  br.ptifm  be  true,  "  It  was  of  an  i.mport  perfeci- 
"  ly  different  when  applied  to  the  child,  from  that 


97. 

^'  which  It  was  cf  when  ?.pplied  to  the  parent.  To 
*'  the  parent  it  vas  God's  feiil  of  the  fubjea's  title  to 
*'■  eternal  life ;  to  the  child  a  feai  oi  no  blelling  or 
"  good  whatever.*'  p.  33. 

Answer.  So  fiir  as  the  different  import  of  bap- 
tifm,  relative  to  the  parent  and  the  baptized  child  is 
refpetted,  which  is  the  principle  fet  up  in  the  objec- 
tion, it  is  readily  admitted.  But^  what  if  the  import 
of  it  relbe6:ing  them  be  different  ?  Is  it  not  necefliiry 
to  adopt  fuch  a  conclufion,  from  a  confideration  of 
the  different  circmnllances  of  the  fubjecSls,  concerned 
in  the  tranfadion  ?  The  parent  is  alone  a^'roe ;  the 
infant  is  "  v/holly  paflive."  The  parent  adually  ex- 
ercifcs  himfelf,  in  a  compliance  with  the  covenant,  in 
both  cafes.— The  infant  has  no  exercifes  in  either 
cafe.     The  parent  is  confidered  as  being,  in  fad:,  in 

covenant  and  entitled  to  its  bleilings The  infant 

has  no  rights  whatever.  Is  it  poffible,  that  the  im- 
port Ihould  be  the  fame  in  both  cafes,  refpeding  the 
fubjeds !  To  the  parent  it  is  faid,  to  be  God's  feal  of 
the  fubjeft's  title  to  eternal  life.  But  can  it  be  a  feal 
-of  an  infant's  title  to  eternal  life,  when  it  is  admitted, 
on  all  hands,  that  it  has  no  title  ?  On  fuch  a  fuppo- 
fition,  it  mud  be,  an  infllcuted  feal  of  an  allov/ed  falf- 
hood  !  Befides  j  although  fuch  an  objedlion  is  fuppo- 
fed  to  have  weight,  againft  the  fcheme  advanced  in 
my  former  inquiry  ;  yet  what  is  advanced,  as  the  re 
al  ground  of  the  objeftion,  is  admitted  by  the  object- 
or, as  being  true.  It  is  acknov/ledged  (p.  47.)  that 
"  Circumcifion  was  a  feal  and  confirmation  to  Abra- 
ham of  every  blefling  contained  and  expreffed  in  that 
covenant  of  promife  of  which  it  was  a  token."  But 
when  treating  of  baptifm  in  infancy,  it  is  direftly  af- 
Icrted,  that  in  it  "  no  promifes  were  fealed  to  us." 
p.  108.  The  objeftlon,  therefore,  if  it  can  be  confid- 
cred  as  fuch,  lies  equally  again fl  the  objedlor's  fchem.e, 
Hs  againfl  die  fcheme  advanced  in  thh  and  ray  former 
inquiry. 


98 

Obj.  II.  According  to  the  account  which  has 
been  given,  of  the  defign  ol  infant  baptifm,  "  It  did 
'^^  not,  nor  was  it  ever  deiigned  to  form  any  diflinc- 
'*  tion  betvi^een  the  circumcifed  or  baptized  infant^ 
"  with  refpecl  to  any  relation  it  bore  to  God,  his 
*'  Church,  his  covenant  or  his  kingdom,  and  thofe 
"  C'i  unbeiievino^  parents,  or,  of  the  whole  heathen 
"  world."  p.  32. 

Ans.  This  objection,  fo  far  as  it  has  a  refpecl  to 
the  perfonal  rights  and  claims  of  the  baptized  child, 
can  have  no  weight  in  it,  even  in  the  view  of  the  ob- 
jeftor.  In  reference  to  the  rights  of  fuch  a  child  it 
is  faid,  when  "  God  is  mercifully  pleafed  to  beliiow  re- 
''  generating  grace  upon  the  child,  it  then  becomes 
'*  pofTeiTcd  of  the  fiime  right  to  the  promifes  and  blef- 
*'  fmgs  of  the  covenant  of  grace  that  his  parents  had 
"  before  him.  But,  until  then,  the  children  of  be- 
"  lievers  are  pofTefled  of  no  other  rights  than  thofe' 
"  of  unbelievers."  p.  ro-B.  It  is  further  faid,  that 
baptifm  in  infancy  does  not  "  give  us  any  more  right, 
"  when  we  come  to-  adult  age,  to  bs  confidered,  re- 
"  ceived  and  treated-  as  chrijl'ians  and"  as  being  our- 
*'  fclves  in  covenant  with  God,  than  if  we  never  had 
"  been  baptized."  (Ibid.)  The  fame  thing  is  exprefs- 
ly  admitted  in  tlieobjctlor'sfcheme  of  baptifm,  fo  far 
as  the  perfonal  rights  of  baptized  children  are  re- 
fpefted,  as  is  contained  in  theobjecHon  under  con- 
fideration.  However,  if  the  objeftibn  be  well  foun- 
ded, and  be  a  real  objection,  it  ought  to  be  obviated. 

In  general  it  may  be  obferved,  that  the  objection 
is  not  true,  in  any  lenfe  in  which  it  can  be  confider- 
ed as  an  objedion  of  confequence. 

1..  It  is  a  midake,  that  infant  baptifm  according 
to  the  fcheme  advanced  in  this  and  my  former  inqui- 
ry, fets  up  no  diflindlon  between  the  baptized  child 
and  the  children  of  heathen. 

^  There  is,  moil  certainly,  this  diflinclion  between 
them.  The  one  is  folemnly  dedicated  to  God  ;  but 
it  is  not  the  cafe,  as  to  the  children  of  heathen.- 


99 

Ihere  is,  alfo,  an  important  diftinftion,  which  relates 
lo  their  religious  education.  As  to  the  baptized  chil- 
dren of  believers,  their  religious  education  is  fecured, 
as  far  as  the  mod  folemn  tranfadtions  and  enga,2;e- 
ments  can  fecure  it.  In  the  very,  tranfaclion,  the 
parent,  in  the  raofl:  folemn  manner,  engages  to  edu- 
<;ate  his  children  for  God  ;  and  the  very  ordinance 
is  a  fign  and  feal  of  his  engagements.  Befides,  the 
*inited  efforts  of  the  whole  Church  are  fccured  ;  for 
the  Church,  as  a  confederated  body  of  cliriftians,  is 
engaged,  by  covenant,  to  fee  to  it  that  parents  are 
faithful,  in  the  education  of  their  children,  as  weji  as 
in  other  refpeds. 

2.  It  is  alfo  a  millake,  when  it  is  faid,  that  on  the 
fcheme  of  baptifm,  which  is  advanced  in  the  preced- 
ing feclion,  there  is  no  difference  formed  between 
baptized  children  and  the  children  of  heathen,  re- 
fpecling  the  Church. 

Although  the  Church,  as  fuch,  has  no  fpecial 
refpect  to  the  heathen  world ;  yet  it  has  a  molt  fac- 
red  refpeft  to  baptized  children.  And,  although, 
neither  on  the  objeftor's  fcheme,  nor  on  that  which 
has  now  been  advanced,  baptized  children,  as  fuch, 
are  to  be  confidered  as  diftincl  and  perfonal  members 
of  the  Church;  yet,  they  certainly  have  fuch  a  fpe- 
cial relation  to  ir,  as  cannot  be  pretended,  refpeding 
the  children  of  heathen. 

3.  It  is  a  miilake  in  the  objeclor,  when  it  is  ur- 
ged, that  there  is  no  diftiricltion  formed,  on  the 
fcheme  now  advanced,  between  baptized  children 
and  the  heathen  world,  refpecling  the  Kingdom  of 
God. 

There  is,  indeed,  a  very  important  diflinftion,  in 
favour  of  baptized  children.  They  ffand  a  faircv 
chance  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  than  can  be  preten- 
ded, concerning  the  children  of  luibelievers.  .  If  the 
enjoyment  of  the  bed  means,  forms  a  favourable  dif- 
tinftion  relative  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  then  the 
children  of  bciicvcrs  have  an  important  diitincHon  in 


their  favour.  Their  p;ireiits  arc  diriituins— have 
dedicated  them  to  God,  rjid  have  fet  up  a  memorial 
of  their  co\'enant  engagements.  Bgfides,  the  fidelity 
of  the  whole  Church  is  engaged,  to  fecure  the  moit 
faithful  exertions  for  their  good.  In  a  word,  if  the 
fecurity  and  enjovment  of  the  beft  means,  has  a  fa- 
vourable afpeft  on  the  welfare  of  children,  and  opens 
a  favourable  profped;  relative  to  their  falvation,  there 
is  an  important  diftinclion  in  the  cafe  of  baptized 
children  refpeiSiing  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  can- 
not be  pretended  refpeding  the  heathen  world. 

From  thefe  obfervations  it  appears,  that  the  objec- 
tion is  wholly  founded  in  miftake.     If  it  were  not,  it 

is  equally  an  objeftion  to  the  objector's,  fcheme, 

For,  although  the  objetcor  fuppofes,  a  certain  prom- 
ife  to  befealed,  in  the  baptifm  of  cliildren,  which  fe- 
cures  their  falvation  ;  yet  it  is  a  conditional  one  ; — 
the  conditions  are  not  fulfilled,  at  the  time  baptifm  i§ 
adminiilered  ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  covenant, 
which  fecures  a  fulfilment  of  them. 

Obj.  IU.  ^'  If  circutTicifion  when  applied  to  the 
"  infant,  fealed  no  promife  whatever  except  to  the 
"  parent,  and,  thefe  refpecling  only  his  own  falva- 
"  tion  ;  how  could  the  child's  being  afterwards  a 
"  breaker  of  the  law  invalidate  the  parent's  claim  tv» 
*'  the  promifes  of  that  covenant  of  which  circumcil- 
"  ion  was  a  feal,  and  fo  become  uncircumcinon  r" 
p.  34. . 

As 3.  It  is  neither  alTerted  nor  implied  in  the 
fchenie  which  has  been  advanced,  nor  in  the  words 
of  Saint  Paul,  to  which  there  is  a  reference,  in  the 
objedion,  that  if  the  circumcifed  child  fhould  break 
the  law,  the  parent's  claims  would  be.  invalidated, 
unlefs  owing  to  the  parent's  negligence ;  and  foit  im- 
ply a  breach  of -ovenant  in  the  parent.  The  pa- 
rent's covenant-claims,  always  did  and  ever  will  de- 
pend on  his  own  exercifes  ;  but  the  child's  being  a 
breaker  of  the  law,  never  was  fuppofed  on  any 
fcheme,  to  invalidate  a   parent's    covenant-claimj-. 


lOl 

According  to  the  fchcnie  which  has  been  .lavrdiced, 
the  clrcuincifioii  of  an  infant,  was  a  iign  of  the  pa- 
rent's covenant  title,  as  he  alone  was  aiStive  in  it,  and 
the  child  wholly  pafiive.  The  circumcifion  of  the 
parent,  therefore,  could  become  uncircumcifion  in 
no  way,  but  by  his  breaking  of  the  law.  The  ob- 
jection, therefore,  derives  all  its  plauhbility,  refpect- 
ing  the  fclieme  it  was  defigned  to  oppofc,  from  m'lf- 
take. — r-rBefides,  the  objecdon  may  be  retorted  on 
the  objector's  own  fcheme  ;  for  in  p.  90,  it  is  afferted, 
"^  Whatever  divine  covenant  there  is  refpedting  the 
feed  and  offspring  of  the  righteous,  it  fubfiPcs  wholly 
betwixt  Cxod  and  the  parent.'*  i^gain,  it  is  faid, 
^'  Our  having  been  the  fahje£ls  of  baptifm  in  infan- 
cy, in  which  v/e  were  pcrfcBly  pajjivc^  and  in  which 
no  promifes  were  fealed  to  us,"  &c, — -It  may  then  be 
alked,  hov.',  on  thefc  principles,  a  child's  being  a 
breaker  or  the  law,  invalidates  his  ewn  claims,  w^hen 
he  has  none  ;  and  efpecialiy,  fmce  the  condition  of 
the  covenant  is  parental  fideUty  ?  But,  whether  the 
objedor's  fcheme  be  hable  to  the  objection  or  not, 
it  is  prefum.ed  that  the  fchem.s  now  advanced  ^^0^% 
not  fuffer  from  it. 

Obj.  IV.  If  the  baptifni  of  an  Infant,  as  a  token 
of  the  covenant,  refpeds  L*:e  parent  only,  and  dedi- 
cation be  fignified  refpecting  the  infant,  "  We  can 
*'  difcover  no  way,  in  which  bapiifm  in  infancy  ever 
'''■  did  or  ever  can,  become  a  hgn  or  mark  of  any 
*"  covenant-relation  to  God,  or  God's  feal  of  the 
-  lighteoufnefs  of  faith,  and  of  the  benefits  and  blef- 
•'  fings  of  the  covenant  of  ^race  to  the  fubjecl."  p.  32, 

Ans.  On  the  fame  ground  and  v/ith  equal  jaftice 
lay  it  be  faid,  that  if,  in  the'baptirm  of  an  infant, 
ae  covenant  which  was  fealed  was  "  wholly  betv.'ixt 
;Jod  and  the  parent ;"  and  the  infant,  being  "  vchoU 
i)'  pajji-vc^  no  promifes  were  fealed  to  the  child,"  no 
way  can  be  difcovercd,  how  tlie  baptifm  of  an  infant 
Ihouid  become  a  ngn  of  its  right  to  the  bleffings  of 
ihe  covenant,  or  a  feal  of  the  rightccufnefs  oi  faith. 


as  the  fubjedl  is  refpecled.  Thofe  confiderations 
which  will  relieve  the  objetlor's  fcheme  from  this 
objection,  will  alfo  relieve  the  fcheme,    contained  in 

this  and  my  former  inquiry. And   the  objecloFj 

it  is  confidently  believed,  has  fuggelled  feme  confid- 
erations which  will  obviate  the  difficuhy.  p.  108  it 
is  faid,  "  When  in  anfwer  to  the  faith  and  prayerj. 
^*  of  parents,  God  is  mercifully  pleafed  to  beftow 
''  converting  grace  on  the  child,  it  then  becomes 
**  polTefied  of  the  fame  rights  to  the  promifes  and 
"  bleiTings  of  the  covenant  of  grace  that  his  parents 
"  had  before  him.  But,  until  then  the  children  of 
*'  believers  are  poiTeffed  of  no  other  rights  than  the 
*'  children  of  unbelievers."  It  is  here  fuppofed,  that 
the  infant,  at  the  time  of  its  baptifm,  had  no  rights 
of  its  own,  any  more  than  if  it  had  been  the  child  of 
an  unbeliever.  And  it  is  faid,  in  thefam.-^  page,  that 
no  promifes  ivere  fealed  to  the  child ;  yet  it  is  alferted, 
that  when  the  child  is  afterwards  converted,  or  be- 
comes a  believer,  he  is  to  be  viewed  and  confidered, 
as  having  as  real  and  perfonal  a  right  to  the  bleffings 
of  the  covenant,  as  his  parents  had  before  him.  If 
fo,  then  for  the  fame  reafon,  his  baptifm  may  obtain 
a  perfonal  fignificancy  ;  and  be  confidered  as  a  feal 
of  the  righteoufneis  of  his  faith.  The  child's  being 
brought  to  the  exercife  of  faith,  and  a  perfonal  com- 
phance  with  the  covenant,  and  to  engage  obedience 
to  its  requirements,  it  may,  with  propriety,  give  a 
perfonal  fignilication  to  his  baptifm  in  infancy.  It  is 
a  proper  time  to  confider  it  as  a  fign  and  feal  of  the 
righteoufnefs  of  faith ;  when  there  is  evidence  that 
fuch  a  faith  does  exift.  On  the  objedior's  fcheme, 
antecedent  to  fuch  a  faith,  the  baptized  child  cannot 
be  confidered  as  having  any  other  rights,  than  the 
child  of  an  unbeliever.  On  the  exiflence  of  faith,  it 
is  faid.  the  baptized  child  is  to  be  confidered  as  ha- 
ving the  fame  title  to  the  promifes,  that  its  parents 
had  before  him.  And  there  is  certainly  as  good  a 
reafon  fc-r    ^^>?  p^rforal  appjication  of  the  ftcrn  and 


103 

feai  of  the  covenant,  as  for  a  perfonal  application  of 
the  promifes  themfelves. 

ObJ.  V.  It  is  faid,  that  Anrlpjedobaptifts,  al- 
though they  will  in  general  agree  in  it,  that  all  pa- 
rents are  under  obligations  to  riW/V^/^  their  childtea 
to  God  ;  yet  they  will  alk,  v/hat  obligations  a  parent 
can  be  under,  to  bring  his  child  to  baptifm,  upon  the 
fchenie  which  has  been  advanced  ?  This  covenant 
was  long  fince  fealed  in  hie  own  baptifm.  He  will 
further  demanct,  what  propriety  there  can  be,  in  fet-> 
ting  that  feal  on  children  or  infants,  if  they  are  not 
comprehended  in  thecovenantj  when  baptifm  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  a  feal  of  the  covenant  ?  p.  1 1 8,  119. 

Ans.  The  firft  thing  to  be  attended  to,  in  an- 
fwer  to  this  objedion  is,  the  difficulty  contained  in 
the  following  quellion  ;  What  obligations  are  pa- 
rents under  to  bring  their  children  to  baptifm,  if  it 
be  only  a  parent's  covenant  which  is  fealed  in  it  ? 

Ans.  I.  If  it  be  a  divine  inftituiion,  that  children 
as  well  as  parents  fliould  be  baptized,  whatever  i$ 
iignilied  by  it,  parents  mu(t  be  under  the  fame  ob- 
ligations to  offer  their  children  in  baptifm,  as  they 
are  fo  fubmit  to  the  authority  of  God,  in  any  other 
cafe  ; — the  fame  as  they  are  to  fubinit  to  baptifmf 
themfelves. 

Ans.  2.  Another  reafon  why  parents  fhonld  of- 
fer their  children  in  baptifm,  although  it  be  a  feal  of 
the  parent's  covenant  is,  the  parent's  covenant  cannot 
be  complete  without  it. If  the  baptifm  of  chil- 
dren be  a  joint-token  with  a  parent's  own  baptifm, 
of  his  keeping  God's  covenant,  then  the  parent  mvift 
i)e  under  the  fame  kind  of  obligations  to  dedicate  his 
children,  as  he  is  to  dedicate  himfelf  in  baptifm.  Al- 
though, previous  to  becoming  a  parent,  a  perfon  may 
have  dedicated  himfelf  in  baptifm  ;  yet  fhould  he 
neglett  to  dedicate  his  children,  after  he  had  become 
a  parent,  he  would,  as  truly  break  the  covenant,  as 
Abraham  would  have  done,  had  he  neglected  to  cir- 
cumcife  his  males.     The   fign  of  the  covenant,  re- 


104 

ipe61:ing  hinifelf,  coiild  not  have  been  coinpiete  with- 
out  it. 

But  it  is  further  demanded,  whut  propriety  can 
there  be,  in  applying  that,  which  is  acknowledged  to 
be  a  feal  of  the  covenant  of  promife,  to  one,  who  is 
not  comprehended  in  it  ? 

Ans.  I.  There  would  be  no  propriety  in  apply- 
ing the  feal  of  the  covenant  to  one,  who  is  not  com- 
prehended in  it  and  has  no  title  to  the  eflential  blef- 
fnigs  of  it,  provided  a  perfonal  title  was  fignified  in 
it.  Or,  if  baptifm  is  to  be  confidered  as  a  token  ot 
the  covenant,  as  the  baptized  infant  is  refpeftcd,  there 
would  be  no  propriety  in  applying  it  to  infants,  or 
fuch  as  have  no  perfonal  liiie  to  its  bleiiings.  Ic 
would,  in  that  cafe,  be  folemmy  feaiing  a  falflvood. 
But  then  it  will -be  remembered,  that  fuch  an  objec- 
tion would  be  applicable  to'  the  objedor's  fcheraCj 
and  not  to  the  fcheme  advanced  in  this  and  my  for- 
mer inquiry.  Upon  the  fcheme  v/hich  the  objeclion 
is  defigneci  to  oppofe,  the  token  or  feal  is  fuppofed 
to  have  refpeO:  to  the  believing  parent  who  dedicates 
his  infant;  and  that  dedication  only  is  fignified  re- 
fpecling  the  infant.  All  v/hich  is  true  on  every  prin- 
ciple.  —Therefore, 

2.  1"ke  propriety  of  applying  the  feal  to  children^ 
although  they  are  not  in  covenant,  appears,  as  the 
dedication  of  children  is  fuch  a  capital  branch  of  the 
parent's  covenant,  that  it  cannot  be  complete  with- 
out it. It  was  fuch  a  fignal  evidence,  of  Abra- 
ham's covenant  faithfuhiels\  that  he  v/ould  "  com- 
mand his  children  and  houfhold  after  him,"  as  that 
God  faid,  he  hie-io  him  by  that  rery  thing.  Gen.  xviii. 
19.  As  the  faithful  dedication  of  children,  is  fo  dif- 
tinguiihing  a  mark  of  a  parent's  covenant  faithful^ 
nefs,  there  is,  m  the  nature  of  the  cafe,  a  propriety 
in  fetting  the  fign  of  his  keeping  covenant,  as  it  were, 
on  the  forehead  of  his  children. 

3.  Another  confideration,  which  fhews  the  pro- 
priety of  baptizing  infants,  on  the  fcheme  advanced 


in  the  preceding  fe^flion,  is  theufe  and  defign  of  feals. 

Seals  are  not  ufed,  folely,  to  make   over  and 

confirm- -bleflings  ;  but  they  are  ufed,  alfo,  to  indicate 
and  mark  property.  The  hulbandman  fets  his  feal 
or  mark,  upon  the  horns  of  his  oxen  and  the  hoofs 
of  his  horfes  ;  not  to  confirm  them  as  the  property 
of  another,  but  as  a  mark  of  their  being  his  property. 
The  merchant  fets  his  feal  on  his  goods,  to  denote 
that  they  belong  to  him.  From  this  ufe  of  feals  there 
appears  a  propriety  in  God's  direfting  his  feal  to  be 
placed  on  the  children  of  believers ;  for  they  are 
God's,  not  merely  by  creation,  but  they  are  dedica- 
ted and  confecrated  to  his  fervice. 

From  thefe  obfervations,  it  appears,  that  there  is 
a  propriety  in  the  baptifm  of  infants,  although  they 
have,  pcrfonally,  no  covenant  titles  ;  and  although, 
■IS  a  fign  of  the  covenant,  it  is  alone  applicable  to  the 
parent,  who  dedicates  them.  It  is  equally  clear,  that 
there  would  be  no  propriety,  on  the  fcheme  of  the 
objector,  of  baptizing  them  as  a  token  of  their  having 
any  title  to  the  promifes,  becaufe  they  have  no  fuch 
tide. 

;  Obj.  VI.  The  Icheme,  advanced  in  this  and  a 
former  inquiry,  is  fubverfive  of  the  praftice  of  infant 
ijaptifm. 

This  objection,  although  it  has  been  made  in  no 
publication,  has  been  more  privately  circulated,  as 
an  objection  to  the  fcheme  advanced,  in  my  former 
inquiry.  The  objedion  was  then  particularly  con- 
iide'red.*  It  is  freely  acknowledged,  that  the  prin- 
ciple on  which  the  arguments  in  favour  of  infant 
baptifm  have  commonly  been  formed,  viz.  that  the 
children  of  believers  are  in  covenant,  is  given  up  as 
indefenfible.  Or  in  other  words,  the  real  defign  of 
infant  baptifm,  is  confidered  in  a  point  of  light,  fome 
what  different  from  the  ufual  manner  of  treating  it. 

■*  See  my  Inquiry,  p,  47—61. 

o 


io6 

Yet,  that  it  is  a  divine  iniUtution  is  fully  afferted. 
And,  inflcad  of  weakening  the  evidence,  in  favour  of 
fuch  a  pradice,  it  is  believed,  that  the  priiidple  ad- 
vanced in  the  fcheine,  docs  tend,  above  every  other 
hypothefis,  to  vindicate  it.  If  the  defign  of  baptifm, 
as  infants  are  refpeded,  be  to  fignify  their  dcdidation 
to  God  and  not  their  perfonal  title  to  the  bleftings  of 
the  covenant,  the  very  fmev/s  of  the  obje^ions,  which 
have  ufually  been  made  to  the  prafticeare  cut.  The 
objedions  of  Antipsedobaptifts  have  been  chiefly  aim- 
ed, againil  the  covenant-ftanding  of  infants — theif 
want  of  faith,  &c.  But  on  the  fcheme  advanced  in 
this  and  a  former  inquiry,  all  fuch  objetnons  are  im^ 
pertinent.  Every  one  mufl:  acknowledge,  that  the 
dedication  of  children  is  a  reafonable  duty ;  and, 
that  it  is  alfo  reafonable,  that  fuch  a  dedication  fliould 
be  fignified  in  fuitable  ways.  No  man's  confcience 
can  objcft  to  it. 

Some  attempts  have  been  made,  to  prejudice  the 
minds  of  the  lefs  difcerning,  againft  the  praftice  of 
infant  baptifm,  becaufe  the  advocates  for  it  afe  not 
agreed,  in  all  refpeds,  relative  to  the  defign  of  it# 
In  a  late  publication,  there  is  the  following  remark- 
able paffage.  "  How  many  are  the  inventions  of 
"  men!  Mr.  Emmons  and  Mr.  C.  Strong  fay,  infants 
"  are  not  members  of  the  vifiblc  Church  ;  and  "  that 
'*  no  covenant  relation  doth  exift  between  God  and 
"  children^  on  accoui-t  of  their  being  children  ofbe- 
"  lieving  parents ;"  but  that  they  ought  undotibted* 
"  ly  to  be  baptized  on  fome  other  account.  Dr. 
"  Hopkins  arid  Dr.  Weji  fay,  that  the  feed  mefltidned 
**  in  the  promife  to  Abraham,  refpeded  and  compre- 
"  bended  his  natural  pofterity ;  and  if  parents  ded- 
"  icate  their  children  to  God,  by  baptifm,  as  they 
"  ought,  taking  hold  of  the  covenant  for  them  by 
"  faith  ;  and  performing  their  duty  towards  them  in 
"  other  refpeds  ;  as  they  may  and  as  many  parents 
*'  have  done,  their  children  (hall  certainly  be  faved  ; 
•'  and  therefore  the  children  of  believing  parents  arc 


I07 

*'  to  he  baptized  ;  altho*  they  do  not  promifc  them 
^'  the  earthly  Canaan.  Dr.  Lathrop  and  Mr.  WilU 
"  icims  have  feme  other  fehenie.  And  hoW  many 
"  other  fchemes  there  are,  I  know  not.  But  one 
*«  thing  is  evident.  If  a  houfe  divided  againft  itfelf 
*'  cannot  (land  infant  baptifm  muft  furely  fall."-|-  It 
was,  undoubtedly,  the  defign  of  the  writer  in  the 
above  quoted  paffage,  to  bias  the  minds  of  others'  a- 
gainft  the  practice  of  infant  baptifm  ;  as  well  as  to 
fugged  a  fufficient  reafon  for  his  renouncing  it  him* 
fclf.  The  argument  is  this.  Thofe  who  have  be- 
lieved  the  practice  of  infant  baptifm  to  be  divinely  in- 
flituted,  have  been  divided  in  their  fentiments  con- 
cerning its  end  and  defign.  Therefore,  it  muft  furely 
fall.  The  principle,  on  which  this  argument  is  foun- 
ded, would  be  fatal,  in  its  operation,  to  every  doftrinc 
of  religion,  whether  natural  or  revealed. — The  advo- 
cates for  the  dodrines  of  original  fin,  rcgcticratitn, 
jujiif  cation  by  faith,  &c.  have  had  very  different  con- 
ceptions of  them,  as  appears  fi-om  the  different  ex- 
planations which  have  been  given,  by  different  per- 
fons.  Shall  we  then  conclude,  that  thofe  dodrines 
muft  furely  fall ! — ^^The.gofpel  revelation  has  been  be- 
lieved, by  the  whole  chriftian  world  ;  yet  therJJ  h 
not  a  dodrine,  nor  an  inftitution,  concerning  which 
there  has  not  been  dift'erent  conceptions.  May  not 
a  Deift  then  rife  up,  Avith  a  bold  face  and  fay,  with 
as  good  a  grace  as  it  i«  faid  in  the  above  quotation, 
if  a  houfe  divided  againft  itfelf  cannot  ftand,  the 
chriftian  fyftem  muft  furely  fall ! — Ahnoft  all  man- 
kind have  believed  in  the  being  of  a  God  ;  yet  they 
have  entertained  very  different  conceptions,  and  jar- 
ring opinion,S:  concerning  his  nature  and  perfections 
Muft  it  then  be  concluded,  that  the  fundamental  doc- 
trine of  all  religion  mu<^  furely  fall  !  Muft  we  all  turn 
Deifts  and  Atheifts ! — it  cannot  efcape  the  notice  oi 
an  attentive  mind,  that  the  argument,  contained   ir. 


t  Sec  Mr.  TxcotsVLcUcr^p.  icj 


the  above  quotation,  cannot  ftop  fiiort  of  univerlal 
icepticifm,  if  purfued.  Therefore,  if  there  are  any, 
who  have  found,  that  their  minds  have  been  influen- 
ced by  it,  it  is  high  time  for  them  to  take  a  review  of 
the  matter  ;  for  a  mind  which  will  yield  to  fuch  an 
argument,  is  expofed  to  every  kind  of  error,  and  pre- 
pared to  fwallow  the  groifefl  abfurdities. — The  au- 
thor, on  a  review  of  fuch  a  raeafure  to;  influence  his 
own  mind  or  the  minds  oi  others,  mull,  fee,  that  how- 
ever well  meant  the  argument  might  be,  yet  it  is  in 
fa£l  making  ufe  of  a  weapoh,  which  is  fatal,  to  every 
truth.  ",  .     .•!    :■  , 

But  to  return  ;  it  does  not  appear,  that  the  fcheme 
advanced  in  the  preceding  fedion,  has  the  leaft  ten- 
dency to  weaken  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  prac- 
tice of  infant  baptifm  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  ferves 
to  reconcile  it  with  reafon,  and  with  every  part  of 
revelation.  If  the  objection  is  only  defigned  to  fug- 
gefl,  that  the  pradice  of  infant  baptifm  is  placed  in  a 
different  point  of  light,  from  w^hat  it  has  fometimes 
been,  it  is  acknowledged  ;  yet  it  is  believed  at  the 
fame  time,  that  it  is  put  on  fuch  an  iflTue,  as  that  it  is 
capable  of  a  much  better  defence,  than  on  any  other 
View  of  it. 

Ob  J.  VII.  The  fcheme  of  baptifm,  advanced  in 
this  and  a  former  inquiry,  is  calculated  to  gratify  the 
carelefs  feelings,  natural  prejudices  and  biaflTes  of  the 
human  mind — There  is  not  that  mortification  and 
felf-denial  implied  in  it,  as  is  implied  in  that  fcheme 
of  baptifm,  which  confiders  children  as  comprehen- 
ded in  the  covenant  made  with  parents ;  and  that 
their  welfare  is  fufpended  on  parental  fidelity,  &c. 
and,  therefore,  it  is  not  a  fcheme  fo  conformable  to 
the  genius  of  the  gofpel. 

This  objeftion  is  not  dated  at  large,  in  any  partic- 
ular paragraph  j  but  feveral  fuggeflions  of  fuch  a  na~ . 
ture  are  contained  in  p.  1 16,  117. 

Ans.  It  is  by  no  means  conceded,  that  the  fcheme 
is  liable  to  fuch  an  objedion.     In  regard  to  dcdicd' 


i09 

iion,  where  do  the  corruptions  of  the  human  heart 
moll  naturally  appear  ?  Upon  the  fcheme  advanced 
in  the  lafl  feclion,  parents  are  required  to  dedicate 
their  children  to  God,  to  be  difpofed  of  according  to 
his  fovereign  pleafure,  without  pretending  to  know 
how  God  will  difpofe  of  them,  altho'  parents  fliould 
be  ever  fo  faithful. — Upon  the  objeftor's  plan,  pa- 
rents give  them  to  God,  believing,  that  if  they  al-e 
faithful,  God  will  certainly  fave  their  children. — 
\'Vhich  of  thefe  fchemes  are  molt  trying  and  felf-de- 
nying — mod  oppofcd  to  felfifh  feelings  ?  Which  of 
them  puts  fai.th  and  refignation  to  the  fevered  trial  ? 
I'idelity  is  folemnly  eng»iged  in  both  cafes.  In  one 
cafe,  it  is  engaged  abfoiutcly  v/ithoiit  any  afiurances, 
that  God  will  fave  fuch  children,  or  pretending  to 
know,  how-  God  will  difpofe  of  them  ;  but  they  are 
given  up  unconditionally  to  the  Lord.  In  the  other 
cafe,  children  are  given  to  God,  under  the  imprell- 
ion  and  in  the  belief^  that  God  will  fave  them.  In 
which  of  thefe  tvi^o  cafes  is  fubmiHion  put  to  the  great- 
ell  trial  t  It  mufl  be  in  the  former.  ■  -. 

Upon  the  fcheme  advanced,  in  the  preceding  fec- 
tlon  and  my  former  inquiry,  parents  are  fubjecl  to 
difcipline,  and  are  holden  to  faithfulnefs  in  the  moll 
rigid  manner.  In  cafe  of  negligence,  they  not  only 
expofe  their  children  to  ruin,  but  they  expofe  them- 
felves  to  be  call  out  of  the  famiUes  of  Chrill.  And, 
although  their  children  are  not  conlidered  as  perfon- 
al  and  diflinft  members  of  the  Church,  yet,  through 
the  medium  of  their  parents,  they  are  fubjecl  to  a 
difcipline,  which  is  peculiarly  painful  and  trying. — 
They  are  laid  imder  a  necefllty  of  being. moral,  if  pa- 
rents are  faithful ;  or,  of  being  declared  incorrigi- 
ble, and  as  fuch  given  over  to  ruin.J-— — The  fcheme, 
in  this  refpecl,  is  far  before  that  which,  although  it 
requires  dedication,  yet,  gratities  the  felfifli  feelings 
of  the  dedicator,   fo  far   as  to  contain  alfuraaces  of 


X  See  my  former  inquiry,  Sect.  g. 


It* 


juft  fuch  an  iflue,  as  his  private  feelings  would  dlcr 
tate.  And,  although  the  fcheme  of  the  objedor,  re* 
quires  a  difcipline,  which  may  terminate  in  the  re-f 
jedlion  of  the  baptized  child  ;  yet  it  in  no  cafe  re- 
quires of  thf  parent,  the  painful  and  mortifying  tafk 
of  bringing  his  own  child,  which  is  flefli  of  his  flefh 
and  bone  of  his  bone,  and  declaring,  before  the 
Church,  that  this  his  fon  is  a  glutton,  a  wine  bibber, 
&c.  an  incorrigible  fon,  who  will  not  obey  the  voice 
of  his  father  or  mother  ;  and  who  has  already  wea, 
ried  their  patience  and  baffled  their  moft  fs^ithful  ef- 
forts. Oji  the  whole,  it  is  confidently  believed,,  that 
che  obje(?:ion,  under  confideration,  is  mifplaced. 

O^j.  VJII,  The  fcheme  of  baptifm  which  has 
been  advanced,  detrafts  from  the  importance  of  the 
inftitution  of  baptifm  j — renders  it  in  a  great  meaf- 
ure  ufelefs,  and  leaves  very  few  motives  to  the  prac- 
tice of  it  J  efpecially  as  infants  are  refpefted. 

Ans.  It  is  acknowledged,  that  the  fcheme  does 
not  raife  up  the  ordinance  of  baptifm  jij^ove  every 
other  inftitution ;  yet,  it  is  by  no  means,  jt^ly  liable 
to  this  objedtion.  This  will  appear  from  the  follow- 
ing confiderations. 

1.  Were  there  no  vifible  advantages  arifmg  from 
baptifm,  either  to  parent  or  child,  yet  there  would  be 
motives  remaining,  for  a  ferious  attendance  on  it, 
which  are  of  the  greatefl  weight  in  the  view  of  good 
men ;  who  are  well  informed  and  not  influenced 
chiefly  by  felfifh  confiderations.  A  love  to  God,  and 
refpedt  to  his  authority  will  ever  induce  good  men  tQ 
regard  it,  as  an  important  inftitution- 

2.  There  is  as  important  an  end  anfwcred,  by  the 
baptifm  of  children,  on  the  fcheme  which  has  been 
advanced,  as  in  the  baptifm  of  an  adult. — The  fame 
end  is  anfwered  ;  for  the  baptifm  of  children  is  au 
evidence  or  token,  that  the  parent  keeps  covenant, 
as  well  as  the  parent's  own  baptifm. 

3.  Several  particular  confiderations,  befides  thofe 
which  have  been  mentioned,  (hew  that  the  inftitution 


Ill 

of  baptifm,  as  it  is  reprefented  in  the  preceding  fee- 
tion,  is  ufeful  and  important,  and  that  there  are  fol- 
cnm  motives  to  the  practice  of  it,  refpe«^ing  infants. 

Ftr/^ ;  It  has  an.  important  tendency  refpeding 
the  world  at  large.-^It  is  one  fpecial  means  of  keeping 
the  covenant,  in  which  God  is  ready  to  tranfa6l  with 
mankind,  in  view.  It  brings  up  and  keeps  alive  an 
inquiry,  relative  to  the  meaning  of  the  tranfaclion^ 
and  the  import  and  nature  of  the  covenant,  which  is 
refpeded  in  it. 

Secondly  ;  The  inftitution,  as  it  has  been  explain- 
ed, has  a  very  important  tendency  relative  to  parents ^ 
who  dedicate  their  children  in  baptifm. 

It  being  a  fign  of  dedication,  and  of  parents*  mofl 
folemn  engagementSj  refpeding  their  children,  it 
ferves  to  imprefs  and  perpetuate  on  their  minds,  a 
fenfe  of  their  obligations  to  bring  up  their  children 
for  God  — 

Thirdly ;  The  inflitution  of  baptifm,  as  it  is  re^ 
prcfented  in  the  preceding  fedion,  is  important,  as 
baptized  children  are  refpeded.'^^It  has  a  moft  direct 
tendency  to  imprefs  God's  covenant  on  their  minds. 
It  brings  it  much  nearer  to  them^  than  it  would  oth- 
crwife  be.  Although  it  does  not  import,  that  they 
ate  in  covenant,  yet  it  brings  the  covenant  into  view ; 
it  is  written  on  their  foreheads.  In  this  view  of  it,  it 
promotes  the  general  good  \  and  ferves  to  perpetu- 
ate the  memory  of  the  covenant,  and  to  awaken  at- 
tention to  it.  It  is  polled  up,  as  it  were,  at  every 
corner.  The  inftitution,  therefore,  is  important  for 
parents^   for  children,  and  for  the  world  in  general* 

Fourthly  ;  That  the  bapxifm  of  infants  is  import- 
ant, on  the  plan  which  has  been  advanced,  further 
appears,  as  it  is  connected  with  the  molt  efficacious 
means  of  their  falvation. 

Parental  fidelity  is  confidercd,  on  all  hands,  as  2 
moft  important  means  of  the  falvation  of  children* 
Parents,  if  faithful,  may  do  more  towards  rendering 
children  pious  and  happy,  than  can  be  done  by  any 


112 

Other  perfons.  By  faithful  and  vigorous  exertions^ 
they  may  hope  and  expeft,  that  their  children  will 
walk  in  the  way  they  fhould  go.  And  the  fidelity  of 
parents  is  fecured,  in  the  bed  manner,  by  the  inlli- 
tution  of  baptifm.  In  the  dedication  and  baptifm  ot 
their  children,  they  folemnly  covenant  and  engage, 
to  train  them  up  for  God  j  and  the  token  and  mark 
of  their  engagements  is  imprefled,  on  the  foreheads 
of  their  children,  that  they  may  be  forever  in  view. — 
Befides,  the  fidelity  of  the  whole  Church  will  be  ex- 
erted, to  animate  parents  to  ad  with  vigor  and  ref- 
olution.  In  addition  to  thefe  confiderations,  on  the 
fcheme  which  is  advanced  in  the  preceding  fection, bap- 
tized children  have  the  mofl  folemn  inducements,  to  be 
attentive  and  teachable  ;  for  they  are  to  confider,  that 
their  falvation  is  depending  on  perfonal  exercifes,  and 
not  merely  on  the  faithful  exertions  of  their   parents. 

If  it  Ihould  be  faid,  by  way  of  objedion,  that  al- 
though it  be  true,  that  there  are  many  things,  on  the 
propofed  plan, to  fecure  parental  faithfulnefs,  yet  there 
is  no  covenant  fecurity  of  it ;  the  anfwer  is,  although 
it  be  true,  that  parental  faithfulnefs  is  not  fecured  by 
any  covenant,  yet  it  flands  on  a  level,  in  this  refped, 
with  the  plan  which  is  oppofed  to  it ;  for  on  that 
plan,  it  is  not  pretended,  that  parental  faithfulnefs  is 
fecured  by  covenant. 

But  it  may  be  inquired,  whether,  if  there  were  a 
promife  of  the  falvation  of  children,  on  the  condition 
of  parental  faithfulnefs,  and  fo  if  parents  were  affu- 
red,  that  the  fate  of  their  children  was  fufpended  on 
their  fidelity,  it  would  not  greatly  animate  them  ? 

Ans.  Such  a  promife  might,  in  feme  views  of 
the  cafe,  animate  and  quicken  parents  to  faithfulnefs  ; 
as  abfolute  promifes  of  fuccefs,  in  promoting  the  fal- 
vation of  men,  might  animate  minifters  of  the  gofpel 
to  be  faithful  in  preaching  it ;  yet  no  fuch  promifes 
are  made  in  the  latter  cafe,  although  a  very  important 
one;  and  from  what  been  faid  it  appears,  that  theie, 
is  no  fuch  promife  in  the  former  cafe. 


Besides  ;  it  admits  of  a  very  ferious  doubt,  wheth^ 
«r,  if  theie  were  a  promife  in  the  cafe  of  parents,  qual- 
ified as  the  impleaded  promife  is,  it  would  not,  in- 
ftead  of  animating  them,  fink  them  down  into  aitate 
of  defpondency.  If  a  believing  parent  confideredhis 
own  falvation,  as  fufpended  oh  his  perfeverance  in 
holinefs,  and  that  there  was  no  grace  fecured  in  the 
covenant  to  enfure  his  perfeverance,  would  he  not 
fmk  under  thofe  views  ?  It  deferves  a  ferious  inquiry, 
at  leaft,  whether,  if  parents  were  to  confider  the  fate 
of  their  pofterity  to  be  fufpended  on  their  faithfulnefs, 
a  faithfulnefs  which  is  not  common  to  believers,  nor 
fecured  by  any  covenant,  they  would  not  abfolutely 
defpair  under  the  apprehenfion  ?  At  leaft,  they  would 
conclude,  on  the  whole,  that  there  were  no  greater 
profpeds  of  the  falvation  of  their  children,  than  if  it 
were  fufpended,  as  it  really  is,  on  the  perfonal  repen- 
tance and  faith  of  children,  as  the  condition  ;  bec^ufe 
in  either  cafe,  the  falvation  of  children  would  depend, 
on  the  fovereign  and  unpromifed  interpofition  of  God. 

Besides  j  would  not  the  fuppofition,  that  the  fal- 
vation of  children  was  abfolutely  fufpended  on  the 
faithfulnefs  of  parents,  have  a  moft  pernicious  influ- 
ence on  children,  if  it  might  be  fuppofed  to  animate 
parents  ? 

Did  children  believe  the  doctrine,  would  they  not 
conclude,  that  their  own  attention  and  concern  would 
be  unneceflary  ?  They  have  a  violent  natural  propen- 
fity  to  negligence  ;  and  if  they  believed  in  the  doc- 
trine, that  their  falvation  was  fufpended  on  the  con- 
dition of  their  parents'  fidelity,  although  they  might 
confider  it  as  highly  important,  that  their  parents 
Ihould  be  faithful  j  yet,  would  they  not  conclude, 
that  their  own  perfonal  attention  and  aftlvity  were 
needlefs  ?  It  is  a  queftion,  therefore,  whether  the  fup- 
pofed promife  would,  on  the  whole,  have  any  ufeful 
tendency  ?  It  really  implies  no  greater  fecurity  of  pa- 
rental faithfulnefs,  than  is  implied  in  the  other  fcheme ; 
P 


114 

and  it  has  as  dired;  a  tendency  to  render  children 
carelefs,  us  it  has  to  anmate  parents.  Befides,  it  ap- 
pears that  God  has  never  feen  fit  to  make  fuch  a 
promife. 

It  appears,  on  the  whole,  from  the  obfervations 
which  have  been  made,  that  the  inftitution  of  infant 
baptifm,  as  it  has  been  reprefented,  in  this  and  in  my 
former  inquiry,  is  not  only  reafonable,  but  ufeful  and 
important ;  and,  therefore,  that  there  are  moft  weigh- 
ty motives  to  pradlife  it. — i— And,  it  is  prefumed, 
that  the  fcheme  is  not  juflly  liable  to  any  of  the  pre- 
ceding objedions. 


S  E  C  T  I  O  N    X. 

Concluding  remarks  and  chfervaiions^ 

IF  it  be  a  truth,  that  the  children  of  believers  are 
not  in  covenant,  and  are  not  to  be  baptized  in  to- 
ken of  their  title  to  the  bleffings  of  the  covenant,  but 
as  a  mark  and  token  that  their  parents  will  keep 
covenant,  and  that  their  children  are  dedicated  to 
God,  it  will  follow  as  a  confequence,  that  baptized 
infants  are  not  to  be  confidered,  as  perfonal  and  dif- 
tin£l  members  of  the  Church  :  and,  that  their  con- 
nexion with  the  Church,  muft  be  through  the  medi- 
um of  paients.  And,  as  baptized  children  are  con- 
nected with  the  Church,  in  that  way,  fo  the  difcipline 
which  is  to  be  exercifed  refpeding  them  muft,  alfo, 
be  throucjh  the  medium  of  their  parents.  Thefe  re- 
marks are  jullified  by  many  conceffions.  It  is  faid, 
*•■  Our  having  been  the  fubjecls  of  baptifm  in  infan- 
•"  cy,  gives  us  no  right  to  baptifm  for  our  infant  feed. 
"  Nor  doth  this  give  us  any  more  right,  when  we 
"  come  to  adult  age,  to  be  confidered,  received  and 
"  treated  as  chriftians,  and  as  being  ourfelves  incov- 
"  enant  with  God,  than  if  we  never  had  been  bapli- 


^'  zed."  p.  1 08.  '  'The  preceding  remarks  are  fb 
obvious,  that  nothing  need  to  be  fald,  to  illuftratc 
them.  If  any  wifh  for  a  further  illuftration  of  them, 
they  are  referred  to  my  former  inquiry  ;  fedions,  7, 

Before  this  inquiry  is  clofed,  after  having  obvia- 
ted the  obje£tions  to  the  fcheme  advanced  in  this  and 
my  former  inquiry,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  add  a 
few  remarks  on  the  plan  which  has  been  oppofed  to 
it.  And, 

1.  It  concedes  the  fundamental  principle,  on 
which  the  fcheme  held  forth  in  my  inquiry,  is  foun- 
ded. 

The  principle  alluded  to  is  this,  that  the  children 
of  believers  are  not  in  covenant  and  fo  not  to  be  bap- 
tized in  token  of  their  being  in  covenant.  There  arc 
many  things  advanced  to  fhew  that  they  are  rcfpecled 
as  the  feed  j  but  after  all,  it  is  granted,  that  they  have 
no  promifes  made  them,  rior  any  more  rights  than 
the  children  of  unbelievers. 

2.  The  fcheme  advanced  in  oppofition  to  my  in- 
quiry, falls  totally  fliort  of  the  object  at  which  it  was 
aimed. 

It  was  del'igned  to  eftabhfli  a  fcheme  of  baptilm, 
which  would  have  the  fam.e  import,  or  render  bap- 
tifm  of  the  fame  import,  refpeding  baptized  ehildren, 
as  refpecting  a  baptized  adult ;  for  it  is  made  an  ob- 
jedtion  to  my  inquiry  that  different-  things  were  figni- 
tied  refpecling  them.  p.  ^;^-^,  Yet  it  is  acknowledg- 
ed ;  that  as  to  the  adult,  it  feals  his  title  to  eternal 
life,  but  as  to  the  infant  no  promifes  were  fealed. 

3.  The  fcheme  is,  in  fome.  refpecls,  unintelligible. 
The    condition  of  the  promife,  which  is  fuppofed 

to  be  fealed  in  baptifm,  is  parental  rlilihf  ulnefs.  Bui 
it  is  not  fuch  a  faithfulnefs  as  is  common  to  true  be- 
lievers in  Chrift.  It  is  a  faithfulnfs  which  cannot  be 
defcribed  ;  it  is  to  be  found  fom.ewhere  between  ab- 
folute  perfedion  and  total  neghgence.  Befides,  the 
promife  itfeli  is  fuppofed  to  contain  a  fecurity  of  piety 


ii6 


to  children ;  yet  it  depends  upon  fuch  a  faithfulnefs 
in  parents,  as  is  not  common  to  true  believers,  and 
as  is  fecured  in  no  covenant  whatever  ;  but  is  as  un- 
promifed  a  favour,  as  the  regeneration,  repentance 
and  faith  of  children. 

4.  The  plan  is  calculated  to  promote  and  uphold 
prefumpt-ion. 

Those  who  offer  up  children  upon  that  plan,  mufl 
believe  in  the  fuppofed  promife,  and  engage  the  re- 
quifite  faithfulnefs.  But,  if  they  do  engage  it,  they 
muft  do  it  in  their  ovm  ftrength  ;  for  it  is  fecured  by 
no  covenant  or  promife  ;  for  there  is  no  covenant 
which  promifes  it,  even  to  true  believers  in  Chrift. 
Such  as  prefume  to  enter  into  fuch  engagements, 
muft  truft  to  their  own  refources  and  fufficiency. 

5.  The  fcheme  is  inch,  that  fuch  only  as  have  a 
high  conceit  of  their  own  eminent  piety  would  prob- 
ably venture  to  praclife  upon  it,  if  it  were  thoroughly 
underftood. 

The  faithfulnefs  which  is  one  condition  of  the  prom- 
ife, is  not  common  to  real  believers ; — and,  no  cove- 
nant fecures  it.  Therefore  fuch  perlpns  as  venture 
to  proceed,  muft  do  it,  on  the  idea,  that  they  have 
fiwre  grace  and  fhall  be  more  faithful  than  believers  in 
common.  They  muft  proceed,  believing,  not  only 
that  they  arc  real  faints,  but  that  they  are  eminent  faints. 
This  obfervation  is  defigned  to  apply  to  the  fcheme, 
and  not,  by  any  means,  to  the  perfon  who  has  pub- 
lifted  it. 

It  has  been  fhewn  already,  that  the  promife  which 
is  the  bafis  of  the  fcheme,  is  not  contained  in  the  fac 
red  fcriptures.  And,  that  were  theie  a  promife,  qual- 
ified as  that  is,  it  could,  in  reality,  amount  to  nothing 
more  than  a  bare  tender  of  falvation,  made  on  certain 
conditions,  which  conditions  are  fecured  in  no  cove- 
nant whatever.— And,  if  it  were  fuch  as  it  is  fuppofed 
to  be,  it  in  no  meafure  ftiews,  chat  the  infants  of  be- 
iievers  are  in  covenant. 

The  plan  of  baptifm  advanced  in  this  and  my  other 


inquiry,  I  truft,  muft  appear  to  be  plain  and  confident 
— to  be  attended  with  no  intricacies. 

I  HAVE  now  offered  to  confideration,  fuch  obferva- 
tions  as  were  thought  to  be  calculated  to  fettle  the  im- 
portajit  inquiry,  relative  to  the  defign  arid  import  of 
baptifm.  Although  they  have  been  offered  with  free- 
dom, yet,  it  is  hoped  in  the  exercife  of  candor  and 
friendfhip,  to  all  concerned  in  the  inquiry.  Whether 
the  obfervations  which  have  been  made,  are  to  the  pur- 
pofe,  the  unprejudiced  and  difcerning  mufl  determine. 
I  fincerely  adopt  the  benevolent  wifh  ;  that,  "If  what 
"  is  here  offered  to  public  view,  be  not  agreeable  to 
"  the  oracles  of  God,  that  the  mind  of  no  one  may  be 
"  perverted  by  it.  But  if  this  inquiry  contain  a  jufl 
"  reprefentation  of  God's  neWand  gracious  covenant^ 
"  it  is  devoutly  to  be  wifhed,  that  the  bleifing  of  heav.-. 
-*  en  may  attend  it." 

Amen. 


ERRATA. 

page.  Line  from  top. 

17  ij  iox  covenant  xe^^  coinmoH- 

25  for  promifes  read  ■promife. 

%o  22  for  make  read  mark. 

31  4  for  imparted  rend  imported, 

43  9  ior/eemed  rtdA/ecured. 

24  27  Xt^AJhonu. 

30  33  dele //;'o/d'. 

34  38  for  has  read  ^a^. 

46  31  read  Tremellius. 

ya  8  rezd /entiments. 

77  15  rcad/w/./y. 

91  16  readT^^fooy.                    )( 

Several  errors,  of  lefsconfequence,  in  orthography,  and  feme  i* 
punauation,  are  not  inferted  in  the  table,  but  are  trufted  to  the  can- 
dor of  the  reader- 


■"L^Wm^ 


■^<^  "^- .  Vf^- 


